1. WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---The petitioner, appearing in person has assailed the instructions issued by the respondents to the Police/Rangers/other law enforcing agencies, as carried in a section of the press, notably daily "Dawn" dated 23-5-1992, which in extenso has reported thus:--- "CHECKING OF VEHICLES FROM TODAY Karachi, May 22: Strict checking of all types of vehicles in the whole of Karachi Division begins from Saturday.
2. According to an ISPR Press release issued here on Friday evening, Rangers and other law- enforcement agencies have been directed to check and impound the following vehicles. Those having tinted glasses, private vehicles using Army or Rangers colour and vehicles having extra lights, including colour lights and sirens (except for ambulances).
3. The official announcement made it categorically clear that all vehicles must carry original documents along and photostat copies of the same will not be acceptable. As for the Government and semi-Government department vehicles, these must also carry the original documents along and the drivers of these vehicles must possess their national identity and departmental cards.
4. Any vehicle violating the abovementioned instructions will be impounded immediately, the announcement added:'
5. The respondents were represented by the DA.-G. And Mr. K.M Nadeem, AA.-G, but at the hearing the DA: G. Did not put in appearance.
6. Comments have been submitted, wherein it is maintained that the grievance of the petitioner, which was only in relation to carrying original documents in vehicles, has already been sorted out in a meeting held under the chairmanship of the Commissioner, Karachi, on 25-5-1992 and henceforth, "all vehicle-drivers shall be required to carry all relevant documents in original or photostat copies attested by a gazetted Government officer".
7. Barrister Rashid Akhtar Qureshi, the petitioner, however, relies on section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, XIX of 1965, and in particular on subsection (3) of that section and, on that basis urges that even the modified stand of the respondents, as regards owner-driven vehicles; contravenes Article 4 of the Constitution which, inter alia, envisages, "no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do". For ready reference section 90 in the Ordinance of 1965 is reproduced below:--- "90. Duty to produce licence and certificates of registration---(1) The driver of a motor vehicle in any public place shall, on demand by any police officer in uniform, or any officer of Transport Department not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector, on production if so required of his authority, produce his licence and the certificate of registration of the vehicle and where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, the certificate of fitness and the permit of the vehicle referred to in sections 39 and 44 respectively, for examination.
(2) The owner of a motor vehicle, or in his absence the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle, shall on demand by a registering authority or any person authorised in this behalf by Government, produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle and, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, the certificate of fitness referred to in section 39.
(3) If the licences or certificates, as the case may be are not at the time in the possession of the person to whom demand is made, it shall be a sufficient compliance with this section if such person produces the licence or certificates within ten days at any police station in the Province which he specifies to the officer or authority making the demand: Provided that, except to such extent and with such modifications as may be prescribed, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a driver driving as a paid employee, or to the driver of a transport vehicle or to any person required to produce the certificate of registration or the certificate of fitness -of a transport vehicle."
8. The learned A.A: G., on his part, has urged that section 90, aforesaid, is not to be read in isolation but is to be examined in the background of the entire scheme of the statute as also the other applicable statutory postulates. He has drawn our attention to sections 3, 4 and 6, Chapter II of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. Section 3 provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective licence authorising him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a motor vehicle as paid employee or shall so drive a public service vehicle unless his licence specially entitles him to do so. Section 4 in the Ordinance prescribe the minimum age' limit (s) and physical condition (s) for driver (s) of motor vehicles, who may be granted licence (s) in terms of section 3. Section 6 prohibits holder of a licence to permit it to be used by any other person. Mr. K.M. Nadeem, AA.-G., has also referred to Chapter III of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and in particular sections 23, 24 and 25 thereof. Section 2 3 provides that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of the motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with Chapter III and carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. Section 24 postulates that every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by the Registering Authority of the division in which he has his residence or place of business or in which the vehicle is normally kept. Section 25, which follows, prescribes the procedure for registration. What section 90 provides has already been seen. Offences and penalties are dealt with in Chapter VIII and where specific punishment for any offence or contravention of the mandates in the Ordinance is not specifically provided for, section 112 in the chapter postulates a fine. The learned A.A.-G. Has also urged that the Ordinance is not to be read in isolation and, according to him, the Police Act, 1861, as also the relevant aspects of the Code of Criminal Procedure have to be kept in mind while examining the constitutionality of the questioned instructions, as modified. He has pointed out that section 23 of the Police Act deals with the duties of all police officers which include apprehension of persons whom a police officer is legally authorised to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient ground exist. Section 23 of the Police Act apart, a police officer, according to this contention, may also exercise powers under sections 54 and 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for arrest(s) and seizures) within the respective limits imposed by those sections. Other law enforcing agencies, operating in the city/province by virtue of section 131-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while acting in aid of the civil administration, may also exercise powers, which are available to police officers. It is added that under the present unusual circumstances, where car-stealing, car-lifting and car-snatching incidents are rampant, all the foregoing provisions may be resorted to in the context of section 90 etc. In the Motor Vehicles Ordinance.
9. Barrister Rashid Akhtar Qureshi has met the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents by saying that section 90 of the Ordinance stands alone and prescribes the mode of enforcement in subsection (3) itself. Alternatively, it is urged that the maximum punishment is a fine in terms of section 112 of the Ordinance. Anything besides, according to Mr. Qureshi, is beyond the scope of law and cuts across the guarantees in Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
10. The respective stands of the parties have received our anxious consideration. In subsection (1) of section 90 every driver of a motor vehicle "in any public place" is required, "on demand by any police officer in uniform or any officer of the transport department not below the rank of Sub- Inspector, on production, if so required, of his authority" to produce "his licence and the certificate of registration of the vehicle and where the vehicle is transport vehicle, the certificate of fitness and the permit of the vehicle referred to in sections 39 and 44, respectively, for examination". While subsection (1) of section 90 is directed to "the driver of a motor vehicle in any public place", subsection (2) of that section addresses itself to "the owner of a motor vehicle or, in his absence, the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle", obliging him, on demand by a registering authority or any person authorised in this behalf by Government, to "produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle and, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, the certificate of fitness referred to in section 39". Thus, for the purposes of the demand under subsection (1) the motor vehicle has to be, in a "public place" whereas the demand for production under subsection (2) of section. 90 can be raised even when the vehicle is stationary, safely housed or parked at a private location. Besides, "the driver" in subsection (1) of section 90 may be just a driver of an owner-driver but either should fill that capacity in a "public place". Such provision would not be attracted if the vehicle is parked at a private location. Subsection (2) of the section, on the other hand, which, as said, applies to the owner or, in his absence, the driver or other -person in charge of the vehicle, is attracted irrespective of the location, whether public or private, of the vehicle, but persons other than owners, falling under the subsection should have charge of the vehicle. The reason why the first two subsections of the section are directed to persons filling different characters lies in the fact that each subsection raises a different demand, depending upon the location of the vehicle at the relevant time as also the subsistence of the circumstance of its current or imminent use. Thus, it transpires that when the vehicle is in use or prospective use in a "public place" it is also the licence of the driver, whether owner, employee or licensee, which can be demanded for examination by the designated person(s). No such licence is corresponding, requisite when the vehicle, covering the situation contemplated by subsection (2) of section 90, safely occupies a private location.
11. Now subsection (3) in section 90 is a relaxing provision and envisages that if the (said) licences or certificates, as the case may be, are not, at the time, in the possession of persons) from whom demand is made, it shall be deemed to be -sufficient compliance with the section if such person(s) produce(s) the licences or certificates within 10 days at any police station in the province, which he specifies to the officer or authority making the demand. The relaxation though, may it be noted, does not extend to "the permit of the vehicle referred to in sections 39 and 44 ...." of the Ordinance. Similarly, the proviso to subsection (3), in turn, curtails the ambit of the subsection and envisages that except as otherwise prescribed, the provisions of the subsection shall not apply to a driver driving as "a paid employee or to the driver of a transport vehicle or to any person required to produce the certificates of registration or the certificate of fitness of a transport vehicle". The implications are clear. It would appear that the facility, subject to Rules, for a postponed production of the certificates of registration or of the certificate of fitness of a transport vehicle under subsection (3) of section 90 has been taken away by the proviso aforesaid. As a result, owner-drivers alone, and that too under subsection (1) of section 90, would benefit under the operative condoning part of subsection (3) and may produce the applicable (driving) licence at a designated police station within 10 days of the demand, the facility not extending to paid or transport drivers. Correspondingly, as regards owners (drivers) or in their absence drivers or other persons in charge of the vehicle(s), falling under subsection (2) of section 90, there is no relaxation for production of certificates of registration or of fitness of a transport vehicle, as relevant. Such have to be produced under subsection (2) at the spot, whether the vehicle be at a private or a public location.
12. On such analysis, even as to driving licences of owner-drivers, a question would arise as to how Such persons would he identified in the absence of due driving licences carried on person or in the motor vehicle? The answer is not far to seek. Because the registration documents would at all times be expected to be carried or would otherwise be readily available at or near the place of demand, the name of the owner would be verifiable. If the owner be the driver himself, it would be enough if he establishes his identity at the time of demand. That could be by production of the national identity card or identity card relative to his employment or any other suitable document satisfactorily establishing identity. It should then come about that a 10 days grace would be allowed for doing the needful at a designated police station.
13. Maintenance and mandatorily carrying of similar photostat copies of driving licences by private vehicle owners is, however, not within the terms of subsection (3) of section 90, which is an exception to subsections (1) and (2) thereof, but the proviso to that subsection opens with the words "except to such extent and with such modification as may be prescribed". It has not been shown to us that the rules have prescribed anything of that character. We are, however, inclined to think that the instruction relative thereto is calculated to cater to other laws and to provide meaningful restraints to the spate of car-thievery, regarding which checks and balances' are to be found in the various sections of the Police Act, 1861 and the Code of Criminal Procedure referred to by the learned AA.-G. Which relative to maintenance of law and order cannot be absolutely excluded from consideration. The instruction, therefore, may, in a broad spectrum, be referable to the spirit, if not the letter of such other laws. Voluntary compliance may, resultantly, be in the larger public interest. Even so, section 90 in the; Motor Vehicles Ordinance is specific on the subject and does not envisage keeping of attested photostat copies of licences by owner-drivers of private vehicles. The improvised requirement for copies of such licences can, accordingly, be only directory and not mandatory and, in absence thereof, no seizure of the vehicle can lawfully be enforced, if the law enforcement personnel be satisfied that, while complying with the other requirements, an owner-driver of a private vehicle, at the time the demand is made, has established his identity satisfactorily.
14. There is no reason correspondingly to hold, one way or the other, about the instructions to keep the relevant photostat certificates of registration or of fitness with the motor vehicle(s)-because the prescribed condition has been relaxed, again on an over-all basis, justifiably, in the existing circumstances. What is mate--- if such had been questioned, that would result in compulsorily carrying the originals at all times irrespective of the fact whether the vehicle be at a public or private place.
15. The petition is allowed to the limited extent indicated above.