' Zafar Iqbal, Bailiff has submitted his report and produced Rehmat Ali the alleged detenu in Court.
No case was registered against Rehmat All and when raid was conducted by the bailiff in the police station on 5-5-1990 at 2-00 p.m. The detenu was found confined in the lock-up.
2. The bailiff has further reported that Hussain Ali, S.I. Informed him that an application marked by Tehsildar, Sheikhupura was presented by Mushtaq Ahmad etc. Before the S.H.O. On 4-5-1990. On the same day it had been marked by him (the S.H.O.) to him (Hussain Ali, S.I.) for inquiry and necessary action and that he had called the detenu on 5-5-1990 at 1-00 p.m. In connection with the said application, the detenu came in the police station in his absence and some police official had confined him in the lock-up. So this much was admitted before the bailiff by the police officers including Hussain Ali, S.I. That the detenu was confined in the lock-up. The confinement was clearly illegal.
3. During the proceedings Mr. Nazir Ahmad Virk, Advocate, Sheikhupura sought the permission of the Court to say something and then entered upon the history of some land which, according to him, belonged to his relative Mushtaq Ahmad who moved the application to the Tehsildar while the alleged detenu was being used by the opponent of Mushtaq Ahmad to thwart the sale of the land.
Whether the land is evacuee or not or what part is being played by the alleged detenu is off the point.
4. The S.H.O. When questioned replied that he had only taken action on the order of the Tehsildar.
The Photostat copy of the application moved by Mushtaq Ahmad to the Deputy Commissioner/Tehsildar and forwarded to the police for action, has been appended by the bailiff of the Court with his report. The application is for 'registration of a case under sections 182, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Against Rehmat Ali (the detenu)....". This application was originally moved to the Deputy Commissioner who simply graced it with his initials on 2-4-1990 and marked it to the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar, after obtaining a report from the Patwari and the Girdawar, wrote the order -{{URDU TEXT}} ' This resulted in the lodging of the detenu in the police lock-up.
5. When questioned that the offences mentioned in the petition moved to the Deputy Commissioner/Tehsildar were not cognizable by the police, the S.H.O. Had no reply except to say that on the order of the Tehsildar he proceeded to inquire into the matterAll the offences mentioned in the petition are not cognizable by the police and except with the order of the competent Magistrate, the police could not have entered upon the inquiry. Ignorance of law is no excuse and that too on the part of a State functionary, sufficiently responsible like the S.H.O. Hence all the actions taken by the S.H.O. Were improper, illegal and without any authority. Any action which is taken by a public servant without due care and caution and in total disregard of the law of the land, can only be called mala fide.
6. Since the action of the S.H.O. And the S.I. Has resulted in undue expense (of the present petition) to the petitioner, so I have considered it proper to safeguard the rights of the citizen under the Constitution and for the expenses borne by the petitioner in getting the release of his father, the detenu, I have ordered the S.H.O. And the S.I. To pay a sum of Rs,2,000 to the petitioner. In this connection reference may be conveniently made to Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution. According to Article 9 'no person is to be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law'. Since the detenu was deprived of his liberty not in accordance with law, rather in breach of it, so the expenses borne for his release have been ordered to be paid which have been assessed tentatively. Under Article 14 the dignity of a man is inviolable except subject to law. As the dignity of the alleged detenu has been violated in breach of the law, so it is the duty of the Court to render help and protect the same as far as possible. Thus guided by the Constitutional provisions the petitioner has been ordered to be monetarily compensated and the compensation has been assessed tentatively which has been paid in Court.
7. Since the S.H.O. And S.I. Have taken the law in their own hands and acted clearly in breach of law and violated the Constitutional guarantees of a G citizen as pointed out above, a criminal case is ordered to be registered against them. The Advocate-General will take necessary action in this behalf.
8. Copy of the order would be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab for taking suitable disciplinary action otherwise as well against the delinquents.
9. The detenu is set at liberty.