' NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner has sought bail before arrest for the offence under Article 155-C of Police Order 2002 in case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.206 dated 14-4-2011 at the instance of S.H.O., Muhammad Younas of Police Station Bhowana District Chiniot. This F.I.R. Was lodged with the allegations that the petitioner who was posted as S.-I. At Police Station Bhowana and was also an Investigating Officer of two cases registered vide FIR'. No.487 dated 5-9-2010 for the offences under sections 511, 365-B and 337L(2), P.P.C. And that of the case registered vide F.I.R.
No.680 dated 12-12-2010 under section 18(i) of Fertilizers Act was entrusted with the completed challan reports of the said two cases to be submitted before the concerned courts but he failed to do so, therefore, the S.H.O. Police Station Bhowana directed the registration of the case against him for the alleged misconduct made punishable under Article 155-C of Police Order, 2002.
2. The petitioner applied for his bail before arrest before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Chiniot who dismissed the same vide order dated 17-5-2011. The petitioner then moved this Court. Through the instant criminal miscellaneous seeking his pre-arrest bail in the matter.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence under Article 155-C of Police Order, 2002 was a non-cognizable offence in which the petitioner could not be arrested without warrant therefore the petitioner seeks bail from this honourable Court that he apprehends immediate arrest from the respondent No.2 who is S.H.O. Of Police Station Bhowana. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments reported as SHAHID HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER V.
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE TAUNSA SHARIF DISTT. D.G.KHAN AND OTHERS (2011 YLR 294), MUHAAIAD ZUBAIR MAUK V. S'.H.O. AND 5 OTHERS (PCr.LJ Lahore 1358) AND 1999 M LD 844 to contend that the offence under Article 155-C of Police Order, 2002 has been found to be non-cognizable in the above two cases at S.Nos.1 and 2 whereas the, offences punishable under sections 156(81) and (82) were held to be non-cognizable in the last mentioned third case therefore the mandatory provisions of section 155, Cr.P.C. Were directed to be followed in the matter by the courts. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus prayed for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
4. Notice was issued to the State in this case. The learned A.A.-G. As well as the learned D.P.-G. Have appeared to address the arguments in the matter. The learned A.A.-G. Has argued that the petitioner is guilty of gross negligence as according to the Investigating Officer of the present case that the challan in the case registered vide F.I.R. No.487 dated 5-9-2010 was entrusted to the petitioner on 13-11-2010 and he submitted the same in the court on 18-4-2011. It is further pointed out by him that the challan of the case registered vide F.I.R. No.680 dated 12-12-2010 was entrusted to the petitioner for submission in the court on 21-1-2011 and he submitted the same in the court on 16-4-2011. The learned A.A.-G. Thus argued that the negligence of the petitioner is established on the record and he has been rightly proceeded against through the registration of the case in hand for the offence under Article 155-C of Police Order, 2002. The learned A.A.-G. Has thus prayed that the petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of bail before arrest, as there is no mala fide even alleged against the complainant of the case. The learned D.P.-G. Also supported the contentions of the learned A.A.-G.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as that of the learned Law Officers.
6. The offence under Article 155-C of. Police Order 2002 is an offence punishable under a special law and the penalty for such a misconduct has been prescribed in the following words:-- "155-Penalty for certain types of misconduct ,by Police Officers (1) (a) Any Police Officer who makes for obtaining release from service as Police Officer, a false statement or a statement which is misleading in material particulars or uses of false document for the purpose;
(b) is guilty of cowardice, or being a Police Officer of junior rank, resigns his office or withdraws himself from duties without permission;
(c) is guilty of any wilful breach or neglect of any provision of law or of any rule or regulation or any order which he is bound to observe or obey;
(d) is guilty of any violation of duty;
(e) is found in a state of intoxication, while on duty;
(f) malingers or feigns or voluntarily causes hurt to himself with the intention to render himself unfit for duty;
(g) is grossly insubordinate to his superior officer or uses criminal force against a superior officer; or
(h) engages himself or participates in any demonstration, procession or strike or resorts to or in any way abets any form of strike or coercion or physical duress to force any authority to concede anything shall, on conviction, for every such offence be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to, three years and with fine."
' The concept of cognizable and non-cognizable offence has been dealt with in the provisions of section 4 of Cr.P.C. In clauses (f) and (n) respectively. In clause (f) the term "cognizable offence" and "cognizable case" has been defined in the following words:-
(f) "Cognizable offence" "Cognizable case "Cognizable offence" means an, offence for, and "Cognizable case" means a case in, which a police officer, may, in accordance with the Second Schedule or under any law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant.
' In clause (n) of section 4 "non-cognizable offence" and "non-cognizable case" has been defined in the following words:--
(n) "Non-cognizable offence" means an offence for, and "Non-cognizable case; means a case in which a police officer, may not arrest without warrant."
' The definition clause of these two categories starts with the word means. According to well- settled principles of interpretation of statutes where a definition of particular term commences with the word "means" it is to be interpreted strictly and all other meanings which are not mentioned in the definition of such a term are to be excluded.
7. Since the offence with which the petitioner has been charged is punishable under a special law Police Ogler, 2002, Schedule-II and its Chapter-23 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 deals with the offences against the other laws for the purpose of prescribing as to how the offences punishable under the laws other than P.P.C. Are to be treated as cognizable or non-cognizable, as the case may be. In this part of the Schedule-II the offences punishable under other laws with imprisonment for three years and upwards but not exceeding seven years have been shown to be where a police officer can arrest a person without a warrant. The use of the term "three years and upward" is thus very important. The offence punishable under Article 155-C of Police Order, 2002 prescribes a punishment for the said offence upon conviction, which may extend to three years and with fine.
The maximum sentence thus which can be imposed upon an accused for such an offence has been prescribed to be that of three years. The sentence of fine cannot be considered as additional sentence in this context as if an accused person who supposedly is sentenced with three years for the offence under Article 155-C of Police Order, 2002 and is also sentenced with a fine, he would only be made to undergo sentence in lieu of fine if he fails to pay the same and not otherwise. The case-law which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner although describes generally the offences charged under Article 155-C to be non-cognizable but this aspect of the case has not been thoroughly discussed therein and only Article 155, was looked into in some details. However by applying the mind to the offences made punishable under section 155-C of Police Order which section prescribes the maximum period of three years sentence for the offence, I am of the opinion that it does not fall within the definition and concept of "cognizable offences" provided for in the schedule wherein the offences against other, laws have been dealt with. It is also principle of law that for the purpose of interpreting penal provisions of a statute strict interpretation has to be adopted for the language used by the Legislature in the relevant law.
8. In view of the above the petitioner is entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail in the matter as he cannot be arrested without a warrant in the case. The interim pre-arrest bail granted to him is therefore confirmed. However this order will not preclude the competent authority for getting a warrant of arrest issued against him from the court of competent jurisdiction and then do the needful and also to move against the petitioner for the violation of the discipline of the service through the departmental proceedings.
9. The petitioner shall furnish fresh surety bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for his appearance before the learned trial court.
Pre-arrest .