1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, In this petition for leave to appeal in a service matter against the dismissal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal of the petitioners' appeal, against orders of their dismissal the question raised is one of fact; namely, whether the findings of guilt, regarding misconduct rendered against both the petitioners and affirmed in the impugned judgment, are not correct. Obviously when told that leave to appeal can be granted under Article 212 of the Constitution against the decisions of the Service Tribunals only if a question of law and that also of public importance is involved in the case the learned counsel made a very fair submission; namely, that there was such a point but the same has correctly been decided. The point was; whether the petitioners as police officials were or were not under duty to interfere and apprehend the culprits when serious offence of kidnapping was being committed in their presence or near about place where they were present. The finding of fact is that they were not only within such distance so as to become aware of what was happening but they were also informed by others about the incident. But they "did not move from their place until the culprits had left the scene". And "when all was over they then went to the police station to report the matter. They have miserably failed in the performance of their duty and the charge of negligence and slackness in duty was fully brought home to them and was proved against them".
2. In these circumstances learned counsel for the petitioners is right in not challenging the further finding that under Criminal Procedure Code, the Police Act and the Rules thereunder, it was the duty of the petitioners to prevent the crime from being committed. And if the prevention had not been achieved and the commission of offence had commenced it was their duty to intervene and save the victim of the crime from abduction lastly, even if they had failed in that attempt they should have chased the culprits to the extent of overtaking them. A final attempt of retrieving the abductee from the culprits was also a part of their duty. In these circumstances we do not find any force in this leave to appeal petition, therefore, leave is refused.