SARDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.-This petition under clause 22 of the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court was submitted on the 23rd of December 1971 by Mr. M. Anwar, a practising Barrister, alleging that Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan who has till very recently been the President of Pakistan was guilty of a number of illegal acts including offences of treason, conspiracy, and murder, and that the petitioner along with Mr. Manzar Bashir, had submitted on the 20th of December 1971, a. Written application to the Station House Officer, Civil Lines Police Station, Lahore, giving him an information of the commission of the said offence, but the said police officer had failed to enter the report in the register as required by section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure till the 22nd of December 1971. The petitioner, it was complained, had charged the former President also under sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code and clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f ), (g) and ( j) of section 24 and clause (d) of section 31 of the Pakistan Army Act, which offences are punishable either with death or transportation for life. It was alleged in the petition that there were massive demonstrations by the people demanding trial of Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan but notwithstanding the same the respondents, without any lawful basis, failed to register a case.
2. When the petition was presented to the Chief Justice on the 23rd of December 1971, his Lordship was pleased to nominate this Full Bench for its hearing and disposal.
3. The petitioner had, in paragraph 1 of the application, stated that "between the 3rd of March 1970, and the 20th of December 1971, Muhammad Yahya Khan, above-named, in order to destroy Pakistan, conspired with diverse other elements, whose names and particulars we shall furnish after the registration of the case, to embark on a course of action which led to the murder of several hundred thousand people in East Pakistan and for which acts of murder, he and his confederates are directly responsible". It was manifest from the assertions in the application that the complainants knew the other persons who were likewise guilty, but they did not disclose their names. We, therefore, asked the petitioner as to the reasons which precluded them from disclosing the names of the persons, who, according to them, were also a party to the alleged conspiracy, and whether he could disclose their names to us. He replied that their names were not disclosed because he apprehended that they might not destroy the record as they were, at that time, yet in a position to do so, but since there was no apprehension left at the time we heard the matter on the 23rd of December 1971, he was prepared to disclose their names, and stated that they were "Generals who have since been retired excluding the ex-Governors who were also the Generals".
4. The information given to the Police Officer was in respect of the commission of offences, some of which were doubtless cognizable. He was, therefore, under a statutory obligation under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Pro--cedure to enter it in the register which is maintained a every Police Station for the purpose. The High Court has also the jurisdiction under clause 22 of the Letters Patent to order preliminary investigation into such offences pro--vided the investigation has not already commenced. It was observed in Shahnaz Begum v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan (PLD 1971 SC 677) by his Lordship the Chief Justice of Pakistan "that the High Court under the latter part of the provisions of clause 22 of the Letters Patent has power to direct the preliminary investigation to be started where no such investigation has already been initiated".
In view of the fact that there was an information of offences given in writing by the petitioner and Mian Manzar Bashir, and also for the reason that there was a demand made in the press from alt sections of the people to enquire into the debacle of East Pakistan and the conduct of the ex- President and also that there were editorials written in the national dailies like Mussawat, Nawa-i- Waqt, Jawadan and Mashriq, we were inclined to order a preliminary investigation, but thought it expedient to know from the respondents whether the case --had been registered, and if not what were the reasons for their having failed to perform the statutory duty under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We, therefore, passed an order on the 23rd of December 1971, relevant part of which is in the following terms:--- "The Additional Advocate-General has been apprised of the application moved by Mr. M. Anwar on the 20th of December 1971, before the Station House Officer, Civil Lines Police Station, Lahore, and has also bean informed of the explanation offered by the petitioner in respect of the other elements with whom the ex-President is alleged to have conspired in committing the alleged offences. He has been directed to enquire from the relevant authorities whether any case has been registered on the report of Mr. M. Anwar and, if not, is there any intention to do so? We have also told the learned Additional Advocate-General that, in the event no case has so far been registered and there is also no intention to register one, we would like to know the reasons therefore."
The learned Advocate-General has appeared today with a written statement to the effect: "A formal F. I R. Has been registered on the complaint of Mr. M. Anwar and Mr. Manzar Bashir at Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore. The F. I. R. No. Is 583 dated 24-12-1971 under section 302 read with section 120-B, P. P, C, The Government has further decided that D. I.-G., Lahore Range will personally supervise the investigation of this case" When this statement was brought to the notice of Mr. M.
Anwar, he prayed for a direction to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police that he should associate him in the investigation. We think that no such direction is necessary because the case having been registered on his information, he will, in virtue of the same, be associated in the investigation, and no one can deny him the right to produce oral as well as documentary evidence in proof of the allegations contained in the application dated the 20th of December 1971.
4A. Before parting with the case, we would like to observe that if there is an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, It falls under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a police officer is under a statutory obligation to enter it in the prescribed register.
The condition precedent is simply two-fold; first, it must be an information and secondly, it must relate to a cognizable offence on the face of it and not merely in the light of subsequent events. A police officer is bound to receive a complaint when it is preferred to him, or where the commission of an offence is reported to him orally he is bound to take down the complaint. If he does not incorporate in the register a complaint so made, he fails to perform a statutory duty as a public servant and, therefore, renders himself to be dealt with by his superior officers for neglect of duty.
Thus, it does not depend on the sweet will of a police officer who may or may not record it. The information referred to in section 154 of the Code or Criminal Procedure appears to us to be something in the nature of a complaint, or accusation, or at least information of a crime, given with the object of putting the police in motion in order to investigate. In the case of a first information, it is not required by law that the police officer is to receive it only if It is given in writing and to record it only if in his opinion ft is correct. The question whether or not it is correct depends on the investigation which a police officer is to conduct under section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The guarantee of the correctness of the first information is ensured by section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code under which if any person gives the first information statement to a police officer which is recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and if ft ultimately turns out to be false, the informant shall be liable to punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with the fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. In the instant case, the information was being laid by Mr. M. Anwar who is a leading Barrister, and Mr. Manzar Bashir who is a reputed public figure and a known - respectable citizen, who could not at all be regarded to be oblivious of the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code and, in our view, the police officer concerned needed no more guarantee of correctness of the information and was not justified in abstaining from entering the same in the prescribed register, either under any provision of law or on facts. Such a practice is altogether contrary to the provisions of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. The case has since been registered. The petition having borne fruit stands disposed of accordingly.