Through the instant petition, the petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, seeking therein, quashment of FIR No, 604 dated 12.11.2016 Police Station Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh, registered under Section 1.4(I) of no Punjab Security of Vulnerable Establirbments Ordinance) '2015, promulgated to provide for effective security arrangements of `vulnerable establishment'. The word "Vulnerable Establishment" has been defined in the said Ordinance under Section 2(i) as under: "vulnerable establishment" means a place of worship or any other religious place, sensitive office of the Government, Federal Government, non-governmental organization or foreign project, hospital, bank, money changer, financial institution, office of firm or company, industrial unit, educational institution, public park, private clinic, wedding hall, petrol or CNG Station, jewelry shop, hotel, amusement or entertainment center, public transport terminal, special bazaar, commercial street, shop or shopping arcade notified under the Ordinance.
The words and expressions which are not defined in the said Ordinance shall be dealt with in view of the guidelines laid down in case of "Province of Punjab through District Coordination Officer, Okara and others v. Market Committee, Okara through Chairman! Secretary (2011 SCM R 1856)" which is as under: "It is settled law that in such an eventuality the word' expression used in a statute must be construed in terms of the General Clauses Act, 1897."
Aforementioned FIR was registered against the petitioner at the instance of Respondent No, 3 Ghulam Hussain SI, who alleged therein that in order to check the security steps taken by the petitioner at his Patrol Pump situated in Mouza Jhuggi Wala, he found close circuit TV Cameras
(CCTV) un-operational and there was no proper arrangement for safe custody of cash available at the Patrol Pump as well as no gunman was guarding the Pump.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. It has never been recommended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is meant to disturb or divert the normal procedure prescribed by the law for accomplishment of particular act.
In the instant case, the petitioner has asked for annulment of criminal proceedings initiated as a result of the registration above said case. This is an extraordinary relief being claimed for by the petitioner and for this extraordinary circumstances and blatant disregard of the law must be evident on the face of record in case reported as "Muhammad Zah,id Iqbal and others v. D.E.O., Mardan and others (2006 SCM R 285)" it has been observed at Paragraph No, 16 as under.
"It is a settled proposition of law that when there are extraordinary circumstances, High ,Court is duty bound to protect life, liberty, honour and dignity of every citizen. It must, therefore, take extraordinary measures specially when the statute law is not sufficient to meet a situation and provide protection to the citizens. It is here that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article under Article 199 of the Constitution must come to the aid of citizens."
It would also be relevant to refer the provisions of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
"24-A. Exercise of power under enactments.--(1) Where, by or under any enactment, a power to make any order or give any direction is conferred on any authority, office or person such power shall be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment."
When action taken by the police as a result of which the said criminal case was registered is analyzed on the touchstone of the afore-referred principles there remains hardly any justification to defend such an abuse of powers by the police officials. In The Punjab Security of Vulnerable Establishments Ordinance 2015, a comprehensive procedure has been laid down for initiating criminal proceedings against the manager of 'vulnerable establishment' if found contravening any instruction passed by the Security Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of the said Ordinance. The 6 word "offence" has not been defined in the said Ordinance and in view of Section 3 (37) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 it means an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being enforced, so, if the manager of 'vulnerable establishment' fails to implement the direction issued by the said committee, under Sections 11 & 12 of the said Ordinance, he is guilty and for that he shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment which may extend to six months and fine which shall not be less than Rs, 50,000/- but shall not exceed Rs, 1,00,000/- in view of the provision of Section 14 of the said Ordinance.
4. No doubt Section 9 of the said Ordinance places duty on the Station House Officer to inspect any 'vulnerable establishment' and submit his report to the Chairperson of the Security Advisory Committee under intimation to the head of the district police. Thereafter, function of the said committee starts and in case the manager of 'vulnerable establishment' is found not complying with the directions of the said committee to ensure the safety of the 'vulnerable establishment' penal actions are recommended against the delinquent manager. Here the question of interference in the process of investigation is not involved regarding which it was laid down and later on approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court right from the case of Lord Chancellor (Viscount Simon) Lords Porter, Simonds and Goddard and Sir Madhavan Nair Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahrnad reported as (A.I.R. (32) 1945 Privy Council 18), that it is well settled now as observed in the said case which is as under: "It is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not - interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstanses of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it mould be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to-exercise its own function.''
When a special law is enacted for a particular purpose, it should be acted and followed in the manner that is helpful in the implementation of said law in letter and spirit. It cannot be left to the authority to interpret the law according to their whims and wishes. Above all the foremost duty of the Courts is to safeguard life and liberty of a person as mandated under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
5. For what has been discussed above, there is no doubt left that the instant case is sheer abuse of authority by the police officials and in such situation it would be in the interest of justice to quash the case FIR No, 604 dated 12.11.2016 Police Station Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh, registered under Section 14(1) of The Punjab Security of Vulnerable Establishments Ordinance 2015, to safe the petitioner from humiliation and disgrace at the hands of the police officials. Therefore, this Court while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, deems it appropriate to secure the ends of justice, quash the above said FIR while allowing the instant writ petition. Order accordingly.