' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.---The learned counsel for the parties have no objection if this case be treated as "Pacca Case" and decided on merits.
2. The facts of the case which need to be stated for the disposal of this petition are that an F.I.R.
No,307 of 2012 dated 16-5-2012 for offences under sections 324/353/365/427/283/395/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered against 31 nominated accused and 200 unknown persons at Police Station Saddar Muridke District Sheikhupura. On 19-5-2012 an application was filed by the concerned official of Police Station Saddar Muridke District Sheikhupura before the Magistrate Section 30 Ferozewala stating therein that the police authorities had reasons to believe Shezad Azam, Hasan Nasir, Shahid Mehboob and Zahid Mehboob were amongst the 200 unknown persons who had committed the offence, hence an identification parade ought to be conducted. On 19-5-2012 the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30 Ferozewala directed that an identification parade be held in respect of the persons named abewe as the police authorities had good reasons to suspect that they had committed a cognizable offence. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision petition which was dismissed in limine by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ferozewala District Sheikhupura on 25-5-2012 after holding that the court had no power to interfere or stop the process of investigation.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no credible information which had been duly verified was ever received by the police officials prior to arresting the detenus Shezad Azam, Hasan Nasir, Shahid Mehboob and Zahid Mehboob. Section 54 of Criminal Procedure Code 1898 ,provides that the police authorities cannot arrest any person on their own whim. In the F.I.R. It has been stated that 31 nominated and 200 unknown persons had committed an offence. There was nothing on the record to show that the detenus Shezad Azam, Hasan Nasir, Shahid Mehboob and Zahid Mehboob were amongst the 200 unknown persons who had committed a cognizable offence hence they could not be arrested for the purposes of holding of an identification parade. The impugned action of the police authorities causing the arrest of the detenues and holding of an identification parade would also militate against a right guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The learned Magistrate Section 30 Ferozewala as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ferozewala in their respective order dated 19-5-2012 and 25-5-2012 have misconstrued the facts and misapplied the law.
4. The learned law officer has opposed the petition and submitted that the police authorities were in possession of sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons namely Shezad Azam, Hasan Nasir, Shahid Mehboob and Zahid Mehboob. A mere glance at case Diary No,3 .Dated 18-5- 2012 would show that the police authorities had received credible information that the accused persons were connected with the commission of offence, prior to causing their arrest. It will not be possible to investigate the criminal case honestly and fairly without bolding of an identification parade. Any order passed for the release of accused persons Shezad Azam, Hasan Nasir, Shahid Mehboob and Zahid Mehboob or restraining the competent authority from holding an identification parade would stifle the prosecution case at the very initial stage.
5. Before proceeding any further it would be advantageous to reproduce section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898:-- Section 54 Cr.P.C. When police may, arrest without warrant.---(1) Any police officer may, without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest.-- firstly, any person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned; secondly,any person having in his possession without lawful excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall lie on such person, any implement of house-breaking; thirdly, any person who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this Code or by order of the. Provincial Governments; fourthly, any person in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such things.; fifthly, any person who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape from lawful custody; sixthly, any person reasonably suspected of being a deserter from the armed forces of Pakistan, {xxxxxxxx}; seventhly, any person who has been concerned in or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been concerned in any act committed at any place out of Pakistan' which, if committed in Pakistan, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition {xxxxxxxx} or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in Pakistan. eighthly, any released convict committing a breach of any rule made under section 565, subsection (3); and ninthly, any person for whose arrest a requisition has been received from another police officer, provided that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and it appears therefrom that the person might lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who issued the requisition.
It is trite that section 54 of Criminal Procedure Code 1898 was not enacted to cater for the whims of a police officer. No one can be arrested-under section 54 of Criminal Procedure Code 1898 unless the police authorities have received credible information or have reasonable suspicion qua the person sought to be arrested as has been held in Syed Mohsan Ali Shah v. S.H.O. Police Station Garh Maharaja Tehsil Shorkot District Jhang 1995 ,MLD 771. The words reasonable suspicion does not mean that a police officer can proceed on mere conjecture and surmises. The object of section 54 of Criminal Procedure Code 1898 is to give wide powers to police officers- to arrest any person involved in the commission of a cognizable offence if the officer has reasonable basis to suspect his involvement in a cognizable offence as has been held in Mazharuddin v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1035. In the instant case four accused persons namely Shezad Azam, Hasan Nasir, Shahid Mehboob and Zahid Mehboob were apprehended after the police authorities had received certain information to the effect that the accused persons had abducted Muhammad Asif Khan A.S.I and pelted stones at the police officials, as would be -evident from a bare reading of case Diary No,3 dated 18-5-2012. Needless to say that the contents of the case diary referred to above are not to be dilated upon at length lest it may prejudice the case of the accused. Holding of an identification parade would be a part of the process of investigation and the same cannot be stopped at this stage. No directions can be given to the police officials as to how and in what manner investigation in a criminal case is to take place. The High Court while seized of a petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 cannot assume the role of an investigator, as the authority to register and investigate a criminal case vests in the police and not in a court as has been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v.
Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad and 2 others " (1994 SCM R 2142).
6. For what has been stated above, this petition being without any merit stands dismissed.