' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.--It is a very unfortunate case. On 24-9-1990, a case under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance VII of 1979 was registered against Ghulam Rasool, Ata Rasool and Mst. Sahib Khatoon by one Sher Ali for the abduction of his daughter Mst.
Aziz Fatima. The other side of the picture was given by the aforesaid Mst.Aziz Fatima in a habeas corpus petition bearing No,6199 of 1989 filed by her. Herein she averred that her father wanted to give her in marriage to some unknown person for monetary consideration which was not acceptable to her; that she had left his house of her own accord and being sui juris married Ghulam Rasool; that the parents of the afore-mentioned Ghulam Rasool viz. Ata Rasool and his wife Mst. Sahib Khatoon were being alleged to be detained by the S.H.O. Jauharabad. She, therefore, prayed that the latter be directed to release them. During the hearing of this petition the age of the girl (Mst. Aziz Fatima) became a matter of controversy and pending determination of this question she was sent a number of times to Dar-ul-Aman. However, on the final hearing of her writ petition, it transpired that the two detenues, that is to say, the girl's parents-in-law had since been released on bail, but in view of the apprehension expressed about her safety the D.S.P.
Jauharabad, who was present in Court and had undertaken to escort the petitioner safely to Khushab was ordered to do so, with the female police escort, vide order dated 18-11-1989.
' Ata Rasool, father-in-law of the girl, sometime thereafter filed another habeas corpus petition bearing No388-H of 1989 saying that his daughter-in-law was handed over to the S.H.O., Police Station, Jauharabad and subsequently she has been handed over to her parents and is in illegal detention. It was prayed that the detenue may be ordered to be recovered from the illegal detention of the respondents, that is, S.H.O., Jauharabad and Sher Ali, the father of the girl. This petition was dismissed on 22-11-1989 with the observation that "this petition is in the nature of indirct device of bypassing the order of this Court dated 18-11-1989". Ata Rasool then filed Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No,2/ of 1990. On 17-4-1990, Notice was issued to Sher Ali, respondent No2, in the petition to appear in person on 24-4-1990. The latter appeared and was asked to produce the detenue before this Court on 5-5-1990. On this date, Sher Ali (respondent) stated that he was unable to produce the detenue before this Court. Accordingly, notice was issued to S.P. District Khushab to produce the girl before this Court on 8-5-1990. On 8-5-1990, neither the S.P. Appeared nor the detenue was produced. Consequently, the S.P. Was again asked on 8-5-1990 to appear before the Court the next day i.e, on 9-5-1990. On 9-5-1990, the S.P.
Appeared. He was directed to produce the detenue before the Court on 16-5-1990. When the case came up for hearing on 16-5-1990, the S.P. Did not appear. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the dctenue had been killed yesterday i.e, on 15-5-1990. The S. P. Was, therefore, directed to appear in person on 20-5-1990. He has, accordingly, appeared today and when asked to explain the cause for not producing the detenue before the Court on 16th May, 1990, as directed, he states that he had directed a gazetted officer to recover the girl for production in this Court on 16-5-1990, but she had been murdered and a case registered in that behalf.
2.. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the girl was murdered, the post-mortem examination was hurriedly conducted and she had secretly been buried. He wants the body to be exhumed because it was possible that the murdered girl is not Mst. Aziz Fatima. He thinks that the real girl may have been hidden away and is still alive. Secondly, the investigation of murder should be entrusted to another Agency than the Local Investigating Agency of Khushab.
3. So far as these submissions are concerned, we may observe that if the girl is still alive and we hope that she is, the petitioner may again move the Court and all that is possible shall be done for her safety. If she has been murdered, as earlier stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the S.P. Khushab then for the investigation of her murder case, if the petitioner wants it be conducted by an Investigating Agency outside Khushab, he may move the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, who will undoubtedly ensure that the case is handled with care in accordance with law.
4. As far as the conduct of Superintendent of Police, Khushab is concerned, to say the least, it has been most disappointing. Notice was issued to him on 5-5-1990 to produce the girl before this Court on 8-5-1990. Neither he appeared nor produced the detenue on the said date. He was asked on 8-5-1990 to appear before the Court next day i.e, 9-5-1990. When he appeared on this date i.e, 9-5-1990, the matter was argued in his presence enabling him to become cognisant of all the relevant facts. Thereafter, he was directed to produce the detenue before the Court on 16-5-1990.
But he failed to act diligently and take necessary steps to recover the girl for production before this Court. When the case came up for hearing on 16-5-1990, the S.P. Did not even care to appear before the Court and sent his D.S.P. Although a day earlier she had been murdered. He was, therefore, directed to appear in person 20-5-1990, that is to say, today.
5. When asked to explain why he had not carried out the directions of the Court and not taken the necessary steps for the production of the girl he has stated that when he was directed on 9-5-1990 to produce the detenue, he detailed a gazetted officer to recover the girl and expected him to do all that he had been directed to do. This was unfortunately not done because it was he who was directed to produce the girl himself, instead he passed on his duty to a subordinate officer. We think that in doing so he acted without proper sense of duty. After being directed by the highest Court in the land to perform a duty it was his obligation to perform it and even if he were to entrust the same to another officer he should have seen that the task was being carried out efficiently and diligently. His failure to do so has led to the tragic death of a young innocent girl. The conduct of the S.P. Khushab displays lack of responsibility. It shows his indifference and lack of respect to the Court and his general casualness. We, therefore, direct the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab to look into this matter and take all necessary appropriate remedial steps in this behalf. He must ensure that his Force carries out the orders of this Court efficiently and faithfully and that no such thing is ever repeated in future.
6. This petition has, in the tragic circumstances noticed above, become infructuous and is disposed of with the above observations.