JUDGMENT SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J. Through the instant Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has prayed for declaring the order dated 17-2-2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, as illegal, without jurisdiction and unlawful. The petitioner has also prayed for passing a direction to respondent No.1 to record the statement of the petitioner and taking further proceedings under section 154, Cr.P.C. Against the delinquent Medical Officer in accordance with law.
2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the instant petition, are that a confrontation took place between the petitioner and some other residents of the village, on 28-11-2009, wherein the petitioner was injured, who got himself medically examined from THQ Hospital, Jaranwala. It is contended that the opposite party also obtained MLC from respondent No.4 on the basis of self- inflicted injuries. The petitioner claimed that respondent No.4 after tampering with the police record, changed the date on the police documents from 29-11-2009 to 28-11-2009 as the respondent No.4 was not on duty on 29-11-2009. The petitioner moved an application to respondent No.1 for registration of a case against respondent No.4 but did not succeed. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a petition under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, vide order dated 17-2-2010. Hence, the instant petition.
3. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed their separate report and para Ise comments. Respondent No.1/S.H.0 Police Station Saddar, Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, admitted that one Noor-ul Amin came to the Police Station on 29 11-2009 who alleged to have been injured by Khalid Mahmood/present petitioner and was sent to the Hospital for medical examination. Respondent No.1 also admitted that MLC No.1279 of 2009, issued by the Medical Officer, contained date i.e. 28-11- 2009 at 9-15 p.m. However, respondent No.1 denied the submission of an application by the. Present petitioner for registration of a case. Respondent No.2 submitted in his report that as a result of inquiry, he found the allegation of cheating and forgery alleged to have been committed by Dr. Sohail Tariq, as correct. Similarly, respondent No.3 submitted that the District Standing Board has declared in its report dated 27-7-2010 that Dr. Sohail Tariq, Medical Officer, has tampered with the police docket and changed the date. However, respondent No.3, in his parawise comments also mentioned about a report submitted by Deputy District Officer (Health), Jaranwala, wherein Dr. Sohail Tariq was not found guilty of tampering with the record. But, respondent No.3 did not agree with the said opinion of Deputy District Officer (Health), Jaranwala, and referred the matter to the Secretary Government of the Punjab, Health Department, Lahore, for taking further necessary action against the accused Medical Officer.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, prior to the passing of the order dated 17-2-2010 obtained a report from the police as well as Anti-Corruption authorities wherein it was clearly mentioned that the said Dr. Tariq Sohail has changed the date in the police docket from 29-11-2009 to 28-11-2009. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, embarked upon an inquiry to find out the truthfulness of the allegations of the present petitioner, which is not permitted under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. As well as against the dictum laid down in Muhammad Bashir v.
S.H.O., Okara Cantt. And others (PLD 2007 SC 539).
5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 resisted the instant petition on the ground that respondent No.4 not only conducted the medical examination of Noor-ul-Amin on 28- 11-2009 but also mentioned the same date under his signatures i.e. 28-11-2009. He further submitted that respondent No.4 cannot be held responsible for the change of the date in the police docket. He maintained that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, dated 17-2-2010, is in accordance with law.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The present petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.1 on 9-12-2009 for registration of a case against Dr. Sohair Tariq for the commission of an offence of forgery, cheating and tampering with the official record but no proceedings were taken by the concerned S.H.O. On the aforementioned application of the present petitioner. Thereafter, the present petitioner moved two applications under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. In the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, which were dismissed vide order dated 1442-2009 and 17-2-2010. No doubt, the first application filed under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Was withdrawn by the learned counsel for the present petitioner for approaching the. Anti-Corruption Establishment. However, from the bare perusal of the order dated 17-2-2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, it is revealed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, embarked upon an inquiry for determination of the veracity of the contents of the application, moved to him, despite the fact that the report submitted to him by the police clearly mentioned about the tampering of the record by Dr.' Sohail Tariq. In the instant case, even the District Standing Medical Board, comprising of four Doctors, has reported that Dr. Sohail Tariq, has tampered with the police docket while conducting the medical examination of Noor-ul-Amin (deceased).
8. The powers of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Are very limited and Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is not supposed to enter into a deeper controversy or to embark' upon an inquiry the determination of the truthfulness or otherwise of the contents of the application made to him. The recording of the statement collection of evidence and all other material, like recovery of weapon of offence or medical examination relate to the investigation of case, which could only be done by the police after registration of a case. In the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala erred in law by holding that the allegations levelled by the present petitioner in his application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Are false. The application of the present petitioner, which he submitted to the police as well as before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, under sections 22-A and 224, Cr.P.C. Prima facie, discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore, the order of learned Additional Sessions, Jaranwala, dated 17-2-2010 is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The instant petition is accepted and a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to record the statement of the.
Petitioner and take further proceedings strictly in accordance with section 154, Cr.P.C..