S.M.ZUBAIR, J.-Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that Dost Muhammad filed the present petition under section 491, Cr.P.C, for the production of Mst. Said Bibi his wife and Mst.
Rasulan Bibi, his daughter-in-law, who according to him, were being detained illegally by the S.H.O.
Police Station Farooqabad, District Sheikhupura. Vide orders of this Court dated 3-3-1993, a bailiff of this Court was deputed to recover the alleged detenus and produce them before this Court on 6- 3-1993. The bailiff recovered the aforesaid detenus and produced them accordingly. On 6-3-1993, the statement of Kafayatullah SI/SHO was recorded, who inter alia, stated:- ** it is correct that the daily diary (Roznamcha) was not in the police station, when the bailiff visited the said police station on 3-3- 1993 at 3.30 p.m. Muhammad Ibrahim SI of the police station took \ ' the daily diary register from the said police station under the orders of the DSP Muhammad Hussain Waraich. *".
Muhammad Ibrahim SI also in his statement admitted that he had taken the daily diary from the PS to the DSP, but he could not tell under what authority of law he did so. Similarly, Muhammad Arif Bailiff of this Court deposed that when he raided PS Sadar Farooqabad on 3-3-1993 at 3.30 p.m., there was no daily diary in the police station and the M.H.C. Nazir Ahmad told him that the SHO had taken away the daily diary.
2. On 6-3-1993, in view of the statements of the SHO, the Bailiff and Muhammad Ibrahim SI, it was directed that a Law Officer should appear to assist this Court whether a police officer can take away the daily diary from the police station in order to make further entries, and the case was adjourned to 10-3-1993. Oh that date, after recording the statements of the- detenus, they were set at liberty. In order to verify the statements of the police officers, it was directed that Ch. Muhdmihad Hussain Waraich DSP should appear before this; Court. His statement was recorded on 17-3-1993, in which he admitted that he summoned the current daily diary (Roznamcha) from the aforesaid police station in order to verify the absence of Ghulam Nabi FC No.670, vide his order dated 2-3- 1993. In his deposit) on the could not give the law under which he summoned the daily diary being maintained at the police station under section 44 of the Police Act and he was not sure whether there was any entry made in register No.V with respect to the summoning of daily diary or not, which is maintained for the circulation of his order as required under the Police Act or Rules.
Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 4-4-1993, for arguments.
3. The learned counsel for the parties were directed to address arguments on this legal issue, whether the current daily diary, which is being maintained under section 44 of the Police Act and is an important document, because every event which occurs in the police station has to be recorded therein, could be removed from the police station or be summoned by the DSP in spite of the fact that it is maintained in duplicate and one carbon copy is invariably sent to the superior police officer as designated by the S.P.
Learned counsel for the petitioner addressed "arguments, but proper assistance was given by Mr. Najam-uz-Zaman, A.A.G.
Before embarking on the legal implication of this legal issue, it would, be advisable to reproduce section 44 of the Police Act, which reads:-
44. Police officers to keep diary. It shall be the duty of every officer incharge of police station to keep of general diary in such form as - shall, from time to time, be prescribed by the Provincial Government and to record therein all complaints and charges preferred; the names of all persons arrested, the names of the complainants, the offences charged against them, the weapons or property that shall have been taken From their possession or otherwise, and the names of the witnesses who shall have been examined.
Magistrate of the district shall be at liberty to call for and inspect such diary."
A bare reading of this section shows that in the first place, this diary is a chronological record of the work of a police station,-secondly, this diary is kept in duplicate, the carbon copy being sent to the District Superintendents of Police and the original kept at the station. The officer in charge of the police station is responsible for all the entries made in the diary; the entries must be made by him personally or under his direct superintendence and under his signature. In this way, the District Superintendent of Police can see what work a police station is doing and how a station is handling any complaint or report made to it and to see whether case has been sufficiently dealt with. This register besides controlling the movements of the police officers, has to record the visit of private persons in the police station, the purpose of their visit and the record of any event which happens during any period in the police station. The District Magistrate is specially given the power to call for and inspect the diary, this rule ensures the rigid accuracy that should characterise the entries made therein. However, the summoning of current General Register ( ) even by the District Magistrate is subject to this qualification that proper arrangement is made in the police station, say by way of duplicate diary, for recording the events therein, in the absence of current General Register. Normally, the senior police officer or the District Magistrate should not disturb this register, because if this is allowed, then the liberty of the people which is enshrined in Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan would be jeopardised and the police officers could conveniently hoodwink the process of the Court, especially, the bailiff of this Court by stating that the said register has been summoned by their superior officers and a forged entry could be made therein later on, if the alleged detenu is found illegally confined in the police lock-up, though at the relevant time he was not shown formally arrested in the General Diary"Roznamcha", as required by law.
4. The General Diary is the only document which provides protection to the people against the highhandedness mal-practices and illegal detention by the police.
In this connection, reference to (tile 22.48, sub-rule (2) of the Police Rules, is necessary which reads:- "22.48 Register No.1. (1,* ** *
(2) The daily diary is intended to be complete record of all events which take place at the police station. It should, therefore, record not only the movements and activities of all police officers, but also visits of outsiders, whether official on non official, coming or brought to the police station for any purpose whatsoever."
Punishment for making false entry in the said register is provided under rule 22.50 ibid, besides penal action Under section 177 PPC read with section 29 of the Police Act.
5. After examining the relevant law, rules and regulations on the subject and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Law Officer, I am of the firm view that according to the conditions and the object for which the General Diary is maintained, it is not permissible, except in exceptional circumstances, i.e. Under specific orders of the Court, to remove the current diary from the police station, lest it may affect the liberty of an individual as enshrined in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Even the District Magistrate should avoid calling for the current general diary, as this general diary is being maintained by means of carbon copy. The District Magistrate should normally verify the facts from the carbon copy. In case of extreme doubt he should depute some senior officer to check the entries of current general diary personally from the original register lying in the relevant police station.
Iii the present case, the D.S.P, has summoned the register and from his own deposition it is not clear whether this order was recorded in his Register No.5, in order to make probe about the absence of a constable, so it cannot be said at this stage with certainty, whether the D.S.P, summoned the general diary bona fide or it is a device engineered by the relevant police officers to frustrate the orders of this Court, so that the bailiff may not know the true picture of the facts, whether the detenus found in the police station were in the illegal detention of the police or not. In this view of the matter, I direct the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, that he should order an inquiry into the facts by a superior officer, not below the rank of a S.P., the find out under what circumstances, the D.S.P, summoned the current general diary, when he himself being the S.D.P.O, of the police station could examine the said Register at any time in the police station, where it is being maintained.
6. During the hearing of some other cases, it has come to my notice in the recent past, that this practice has developed that current general diary register of the police is taken out from the police station at will, sometimes under direction of the superior police officer, not competent under the provisions of section 44 of the Police Act and sometimes the S.H.O, himself brings the register to the Court of his own accord, without there being any formal orders by the Court, which is hereby deprecated, and it is directed that under no circumstance, the original current general diary register be taken out from the police station. If it becomes inevitable to do so, under the specific orders of the Court, then the S.H.O, is bound to make proper arrangements that no interpolation is made in the said register, when it is out of the police station. In the absence of this register suitable arrangements be made at the police station for recording each and every event, as contemplated by section 44 of the Police Act. In order to curb this illegal practice, the Inspector-General of Police is directed to issue directive to all concerned police officers, through their respective DIGs and SPs in the Punjab that the current general diary under no circumstance should be removed from the police station and that entries in the said Register should be recorded promptly as required by section 44 of the Police Act.
7. A copy of this order should be sent to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, for appropriate action and compliance, under intimation to this Court. With these observations, this petition is disposed of.