' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---Bashir Ahmed, petitioner, has invoked the constitutional- jurisdiction under Article 199 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. To impugn the order dated 4-11-2011 passed by the learned Illaqa Magistrate Police Station City Khanewal (respondent No,3) and order dated 3-1-2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Khanewal.
2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that one Zahoor Ahmed lodged F.I.R. No,614 of 2011, dated 5- 10-2011 at 7-30 p.m. Under section 397, P.P.C. At Police Station City Khanewal alleging that on 4-10- 2011 at 11-00 p.m. His driver namely Bashir Ahmed (petitioner) along with Muhammad Niaz P.W. Was transporting a load of cotton weighing 237 maunds valued Rs,6,00,000 on his trolley-tractor Massey-240 Model 2006 Registration No,3219/KW; that on their way to Iqbal Cotton Factory Kabirwala when reached near Khokhewala Hospital Khanewal eight unknown persons armed with firearm weapons intercepted them and one of the accused fired rifle shot which hit Bashir Ahmed on his back at left side; that four unknown accused snatched the tractor-trolley and decamped towards Khanewal; that the remaining four accused armed with firearm weapons kept Bashir Ahmed driver in injured condition and Niaz P.W. In Gawara crop near Railway Line up till 3-00 a.m.
On gun point and thereafter they also decamped.
3. Later on complainant through his supplementary statement dated 21-10-2011 nominated Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Arshad (respondents Nos.5 and 6) as accused of the alleged occurrence who were arrested by the police on 28-10-2011 and produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate for their physical remand for the purpose of investigation. The learned Illaqa Magistrate granted two days physical remand, which was extended for two days and further extended for another two days. After exhausting six days physical remand police produced both the accused before the learned Illaqa Magistrate on 4-11-2011 with a request for further physical remand of eight clays to effect recovery of stolen property. The learned Illaqa Magistrate after perusing the police file observed that no progress was made by the police towards recovery of alleged stolen property and that no explanation was given on record in this regard except scribing single line in daily diary No,11 dated 3-11-2011 that accused were reluctant regarding recovery.
Learned Illaqa Magistrate in the impugned order dated 4-11-2011 categorically noted that no effort on the part of police revealed during the investigation to effect recovery of the stolen property, therefore, he declined further extension in the physical remand of the accused and remanded the accused to judicial lockup with a direction to the police to submit report under section 173, Cr.P.C.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Khanewal against the said order, which was also dismissed vide order dated 3-1-2012.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Illaqa Magistrate should have granted the request of the police for extension in the physical remand to effect recoveries of the stolen property in order to exhaust the facility of fifteen days physical remand; that remanding of the accused to the judicial lockup without exhausting the limit of fifteen days physical remand is illegal and amounts to miscarriage of justice; that the impugned order, therefore, is untenable in the eye of law and liable to set aside.
5. Learned Assistant Advocate General argued that although the police could not show any progress towards the investigation of the case despite availing facility of six days physical remand, even then, learned Magistrate should have extended the physical remand of the accused keeping in view the outstanding recoveries of the stolen property.
6. I have given patient hearing to learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record.
7. Section 61 of Cr.P.C. Stipulates that a Police Officer cannot detain a person in his custody more than twenty-four hours in the absence of specific order of Magistrate under section 167, Cr.P.C., which enables a Magistrate to pass an order extending the detention of an accused for a term not exceeding fifteen days and shall record his reason for doing so. Simultaneously, section 344, Cr.P.C.
Postulates that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time. It further explains that if sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused might have committed an offence and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand this is reasonable cause for remand.
8. Besides above quoted procedural law, Rules and Orders of this Court also furnish guidelines on the subject.
' Relevant Rule 7 of Volume-III Chapter-II Part-B of the Rules and Orders of this Court reads as below:-- "Accused must be produced before the Magistrate who should satisfy himself about necessity far remand. In order to form an opinion as to necessity or otherwise of the remand applied for by the police, the Magistrate should examine copies of the diaries submitted under section 167 and ascertain what previous orders (if an)) have been made in the case and the longer the accused person has been in custody, the stronger should be the grounds required for a further remand to police custody. The accused person must always be produced before the Magistrate when a remand is asked for."
9. It is an established principle of law that remand is not to be granted mechanically on the request of the police, rather a Magistrate is expected to perform his duty with eyes and ears open as required under the law after judicious application of mind and not in a perfunctory manner. A Magistrate before granting a remand is under legal obligation to satisfy himself if under the circumstances remand is to be granted or not. Needless to mention that liberty of a person cannot be compromised merely on a formal request of a police officer. It is sacred duty of a Magistrate to safeguard the fundamental rights of life and liberty of a person as enshrined under Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
10. In the instant case impugned order transpires that learned Magistrate examined the police file, before deciding the question of remand and finding that no investigation was conducted despite having obtained six days physicil remand, therefore, after satisfying himself in furtherance of his legal duty he rightly declined extension in the physical remand of the accused in the hands of the police. Certainly, the accused cannot be remanded to the police in routine to exhaust the facility of fifteen days physical remand-or to get his confessional statement or to compel him to effect recovery of stolen property on the basis of expectation that mere afflux of time may lead to the guilt of the accused. In this case police failing to show any material progress towards investigation during already obtained six days physical remand of the accused was not able to justify its request for further extension. I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 4-11-2011 passed by learned Magistrate refusing to grant further physical remand as well as in the impugned order dated 3-1-2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge whereby petitioner's revision petition was dismissed. Petitioner has no case to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this court. This petition having no merit is dismissed in limine.