' This order will dispose of Writ Petition No, 1343 of 1980 and Criminal Revision No, 164 of 1980 filed by Muhammad Rashid Butt, which arise out of the same matter. In the writ petition, a direction has been sought against the police to register a case. The criminal revision has been filed against the report dated 24-12-1979 made by respondent No, 3 into the cause of death of one Muhammad Arshad which was confirmed by the District Magistrate (respondent No, 2) on 27-12-1979.
2. The facts, as given in the petitions, are that the petitioner's brother, namely, Muhammad Arshad, on 3-12-1979 at about 3/4 p.m., alongwith a minor boy namely, Hamad son of Ghulam Rabbani, resident of the same street, where Muhammad Arshad was putting up, went to a flour-mill. He was stated to be a man of unsound mind. He and the minor boy named above did not return till 4-12- 1979. The petitioner's family made frantic efforts to find out the whereabouts of Muhammad Arsbad and Hamad but without any success. On 4-12-1979 at about 12 noon, the petitioner learnt from Ghulam Rabbani, father of the minor boy Hamad, that Ghulam Rabbani received a telephonic message from Police Station. Model Town, Gujranwala, that the missing boys were in the custody of S. H.
0., Police Station Mandi Bahauddin, District Gujrat. According to the petitioner, he alongwith Ch. Muhammad Boota Dar, Gulam Rabbani father of the minor boy, Haji Ahmad Din and some other persons rushed to Mandi Bahauddin and reached there on the same day at about 4/5 p.m. The police officials did not allow the petitioner and others to enter into the police station and they were asked to wait outside as, according to the police officials, Muhammad Arshad and Hamad were stated to be in the custody of military officials. The petitioner and others also contacted the Military Authorities but they were re-directed to approach the S. H.
0. Ch. Manzoor Ahmad, respondent No, 5, disclosed to the petitioner that the minor boy Hamad was in his custody but he failed to disclose the whereabouts of the petitioner's brother, namely, Muhammad Arshad. Anyhow, the minor boy was handed over to his father Ghulam Rabbani after obtaining a writing from him on the pretext that the boy was to be produced before the Court of Assistant Commissioner. The minor boy was returned on 5-12-1979 but .The whereabouts of the lost person Muhammad Arshad could not be known in. Spite of best efforts made by the petitioner and others. The petitioner also informed various authorities at Gujranwala but he could not know anything about the same. Finally, he got an information through Ghulam Rabbani father of the minor boy Hamad that the dead body of Muhammad Arshad was lying in Civil Hospital, Phalia, District Gujrat. Consequently, the petitioner rushed to the hospital alongwith other persons. The doctor informed the petitioner that the dead body of Muhammad Arshad was brought to the hospital by the police of Sadar Police Station Mandi Bahauddin at about 2 a.m. Between the night of 4/5-12-1979 and that after the autopsy the dead body was buried on 5-12-1979 at 10 a.m. At Phalia declaring the same to be the dead body of some unknown person. The petitioner moved Writ Petition No, 1343/80 asking for a direction to the Police to register a case about the death of Muhammad Arshad.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, I summoned Mr. S. M. Zubair, learned Assistant Advocate-General who informed this Court that a judicial inquiry was conducted into the cause of death of Muhammad Arshad under the orders of District Magistrate, Gujrat. A report was submitted by respondent No, 3 on 24-12-1979 to the District Magistrate who, by his order dated 27-12-1979, declared that in view of the judicial report the police was not to be blamed for the death of Muhammad Arshad deceased. The petitioner, in the meantime, also filed Criminal Revision No, 164 of 1980 for setting aside the proceedings of inquiry under section 176, Cr. P. C., including the report and the order of the District Magistrate mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the police is responsible for the death of Muhammad Arshad and they have maneuvered the report by producing false and unconnected evidence before the learned Magistrate. According to him, no notice was ever given to the petitioner or other members of the family of Muhammad Arshad deceased. Even, the minor boy Hamad and his father Ghulam Rabbani were not examined in the inquiry in order to find out the truth about the cause of death of the deceased.
5. I have seen the proceedings of the inquiry report which were produced by the learned Assistant Advocate-General, a photostat copy of which was placed on the record. The Superintendent of Police, Gujrat, submitted an application for holding a judicial inquiry into the cause of death of Muhammad Arshad whose parentage and address was not known according to him. In the letter, it was also mentioned that the apparent cause of death of Muhammad Arshad was not known to the police. However, on this application, the District Magistrate deputed Mr. Hasrat Nawaz, Magistrate Ist Class, to hold a judicial inquiry. This order was made on 4-12-1979. Shaukat All, Abdul Hameed, Salar Saleh Muhammad, Sikandar Azam, Addl. S. H. O., Muhammad Nazir Muhartir A. S. I. And Manzoor Hussain, S. H. O., Police Station Mandi Bahauddin were examined as witnesses in the inquiry. It is really strange that the learned Magistrate who held the judicial inquiry failed to provide any opportunity to the members of the family of the deceased to appear and depose before him. It was very easy for the police to produce, at least, the minor boy Hamad in order to know the whereabouts of Muhammad Arshad and it was significant that, according to the evidence on record, the minor Hamad all along was with Muhammad Arshad and they both were apprehended together by the police. If some effort was really made in right earnest, the boy would have disclosed the address and names of the members of the family of Muhammad Arshad. When the boy was returned by the police immediately on 5-12-1979 and on that day it is evident from the proceedings of the inquiry that six persons were examined by the learned Magistrate in the inquiry, there was no hitch in examining the minor boy and also his father to whom the boy was ultimately returned. The cause of grievance of the petitioner seems to be quite genuine. The police in fact has tried to hush up the matter in hurry.
6. I have also seen the report of Dr. Rashid Ahmad, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Phalia who examined the dead body of Muhammad Arshad on 5-12-1979 at 8 a.m. The nature of the injuries on the person of Muhammad Arshad deceased is really very obvious and will speak for the manner in which they were caused. Lungs were also found swollen.
7. The judicial inquiry, therefore, was not properly conducted by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as no opportunity was given to the members of the family of the deceased to appear and depose about the cause of death. Even, no effort was made either by the police or by the Inquiry Magistrate to find out the whereabouts of the relations of the deceased though it was obviouly quite easy to get the information regarding the names and addresses of the members of the family of Muhammad Arshad, firstly, from Hamad who was found in the company of the deceased, and, secondly, through his father to whom the boy was handed over on 5-12-1979 when the inquiry was going on.
The learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the respondents has also agreed that this is a fit case for further inquiry to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence before the Inquiry Magistrate.
8. In view of the above, the proceedings conducted under section 176, Cr. P. C., including the report dated 24-12-1979 and the order of the Distri Magistrate dated 27-12-1979 are set aside and the District Magistrate, Gujrat, is directed to hold a fresh inquiry into the cause of death of Muhammad Arshad deceased. The 'petitioner and other members of his family shall be provided a proper opportunity to lead evidence of whatever' nature they deem fit. The revision petition, therefore, is accepted.
9. Since the judicial inquiry is directed to be held afresh, the writ petition has become infructuous as the relief sought therein will be dependent upon the result of the judicial inquiry. The same is disposed of as having. Become infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.