Notices had been issued to Safdar and Lal Khan respondents in Crl. Misc. No.4636/B-91 to show cause against recall of the bail allowed to them by a learned A.S.J. Of Gujrat.
2. The abovementioned petition came up for hearing before me on 29-1-1992 i.e. Almost forty days after the issuance of the notices to the respondents. The said respondents were not present before the Court on the said date nor was the fate of the said notices even communicated to this Court by the District Magistrate through whom the said notices had been sent for service.
3. The District Magistrate was asked to explain the action taken by him with regard to the affecting of service, as directed.
4. From the explanation of the District Magistrate, it transpired that he had sent the said notices to the S.P. Of the Gujrat on 8-1-1992 for causing service on the abovementioned respondents.
5. The S.P. Was then called upon to explain the steps taken by him in the matter and to explain why the needful had not been done by him for at least three weeks i.e. Till 29-1-1992.
6. The S.P. Submitted that the notices in question had been marked to the S.H.O. Concerned who in turn entrusted the same to Detective Constable Nasim Khalid No.751 for arranging service in compliance with the orders of this Court and further that after serving the same on the respondents, Muhammad Arshad Constable No.745 delivered them in the office of the High Court on 29-1-1992 i.e. The date on which the matter was fixed for hearing and obviously these notices could not reach this Court before the hearing of the petition.
7. The S.P. Of Gujrat, the S.H.O. Of Police Station Kharrian, the Moharrir of Police Station Kharrian, namely, Muhammad Aslam ASI and Nasim Khalid Detective Constable No.751 of the said police station have been heard.
8The S.P. Present in Court states that after receipt of the said notices in his office, the Superintendent of his office had marked the same to the S.H.0 of P.S. Kharrian without bringing the matter to his notice.
9. The S.H.O. Present in Court states that the said notices had been received in his police station on 9-1-1992 and his Mohaffir had marked the same to D.F.C. Nasim Khalid for service without bringing the matter to his notice.
10. D.F.C. Nasim Khalid states that he duly served the said notices on the aforementioned respondents on 14-1-1992 and deposited the duplicates with the Moharrir of the police station on the same day.
11. Muhammad Aslam ASI/Moharrir present in Court states that he had received back these notices after service on 14-1-1992 but forgot to despatch them back to this Court till 294-1992.
12. 1 am shocked at the treatment meted out by the Gujrat police to a process issued by this Court.
13. 1 was minded to proceed against the S.P. And his subordinates but it was on account of the earnest and persistent apologies tendered by the S.P. And the other concerned officials that I have decided to exercise restraint and have pardoned them for their malfeasance. The S.P. Has undertaken, that in future he shall personally supervise compliance of the processes issued by the Courts of law.
14. The apologies tendered by the police officers are accepted and the notices issued to them are discharged.
15. But before I part with this order, I feel constrained to mention that non-execution of the processes issued by the Courts of law is one of the major reasons causing delays in the administration of justice relating to crimes.
1 16. . During the course of an inspection of the District Courts at Lahore, I had noticed that out of every 100 summonses/warrants issued by the learned trial Courts, more than 92 such processes remained un-executed.
17. This state of affairs is appalling and is a shocking reflection on the efficiency, competence and interest shown by the Police Department in this regard. If this apathy on the part of the police agency is permitted to go un--checked, then the same could lead to a complete break-down of the machinery dealing with the administration of justice. Extraordinary steps need to be taken to correct this extraordinary situation.
18. I therefore feel compelled to direct that in future, it shall be the personal obligtion of the S.H.O. Of the concerned police station and the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District to ensure that all processesissued by the Courts of law are served, executed and implemented effectively and expeditiously.
19. It may be mentioned here that negligence in this connection amounts to obstructing the course of justice and such a conduct is culpable and consequently punishable under the law.
20. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief of the Provincial Police (the Inspector-General of Police) for his information and necessary action and he shall also circulate the same to all the S.Ps.
In the Province for their information and compliance.
M.B.A./S -37/1 Order accordingly