The report is submitted by the Bailiff according to which, Umar Daraz detenu was arrested in a criminal case registered under section 382, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No.197/96 dated 25-10-1996 at P.S. Massen, District Jhang for an occurrence which took place on 16-10-1996 for depriving the complainant of his cow valuing Rs.19,000. Another case against the aforesaid Umar Daraz was registered under section 379, P.P.C. For stealing an ox valuing Rs.21,000 belonging to the complainant Muhammad Bakhsh vide F.I.R. No.200 dated 29-10-1996 for an occurrence which took place about five months back.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these cases are only manipulated in order to justify the arrest in order to avoid the consequence of this petition in which it is alleged that the detention of Umar Daraz was illegal.
3. It is not a stage to comment upon the merits of those cases which will be processed in accordance with law. The entry about the arrest of Umar Daraz was found in the relevant case diary. The perusal of record further shows that the physical remand of detenu Umar Daraz was obtained on 30-10-1996 from the Court of a Magistrate up to 4-11-1996. In that event, the arrest of Umar Daraz detenu is a complete answer to the present writ petition qua him. The writ petition to this extent is accordingly dismissed.
4. The next question which calls for consideration is the allegation in the petition that a son of the petitioner namely Hassan Raza was also taken away illegally from the house and then confined at the police station where he was allegedly subjected to torture and beating. In this regard, contents of paragraph No-7 of the petition are relevant. It is averred by the petitioner, therein, that for the first time, the petitioner had seen the aforesaid Hassan Raza on the morning of 23-10-1996 and thereafter, it was learnt that he was tied down with "American Fetters" and he was subjected to violence as a result of which, he was afflicted with urinal problems and as a consequence, he was taken to the hospital where his urinal system was allegedly cleared through medical procedure.
The petitioner's husband allegedly went to the S.H.O. Concerned on 25-10-1996 alongwith respectables and prayed for release of aforesaid Hassan Raza upon which, he was told that he had run away and was not with him. An apprehension was expressed in paragraph No.9 of the petition that either the aforesaid Hassan Raza was seriously ill or his life might have been extinguished in order to suppress the alleged torture and beating given to him by the police.
5. In the comments offered by the S.H.O., it is submitted that the aforesaid Hassan Raza was never arrested by them or brought to the police station and that the story was cocked up in order to cow down the police which was active against the family members of the petitioner who were history-- -sheeters and were involved in different cases for committing serious offences like abduction, robbery, kidnapping and theft, etc. On the other hand, the petitioner has submitted that action of the police is arbitrary, cruel and in utter disregard of law (Sikhs Shahi). These types of allegations and counter allegations cannot be readily gone into within the scope of this writ petition. It is, however, a matter which requires serious attention of the high-ups in the police administration. The S.P., Jhang is, therefore, directed to hold an enquiry in respect of the aforesaid allegations levelled by the petitioner against the S.H.O. Concerned and also the counter allegations made in reply thereto by the S.H.O. Any appropriate action warranted by law shall be taken by the S.P., Jhang on the basis of the result of that enquiry. Needless to say that in addition to the aforesaid enquiry, the petitioner has an unabridged right to bring a complaint in the Court of a Magistrate against the police officials regarding the removal etc. Of Hassan Raza by the police concerned. That part of the petition is accordingly disposed of.
6. Lastly, the question relating to the removal of cattle and other house--hold articles would call for discussion. According to police version, the police PAY while on patrol duty on 23-10-1996 in the areas of village Alman Sharqi noticed three persons taking a herd of cattle towards the tree plantation/forest (Bails) by the side of River Chanab. On seeing the police party, Shah Muhammad, Ata Muhammad and Hassan Raza managed to escape into the forest (Bails) on their mares. While escaping, they left the following cattle unattended:---
(a) Two cows with one calf.
(b) Two buffaloes with one calf.
(c) One mare.
The aforesaid cattle were taken into possession by the S.H.O. Under section 550, Cr.P.C. After getting suspicious about their bona fide ownership. However, admittedly no order was obtained from the Court of competent jurisdiction under section 523, Cr.P.C. The law requires that the S.H.O.
Concerned shall obtain, order regarding the disposal of such suspicious property as ordained by section 523, Cr.P.C. In this respect, reference to PLD 1994 Lahore 521 shall be very relevant. It was held in the aforesaid authority that such seizure of property by the police officer was to be forthwith reported to the Magistrate for obtaining an order under section 523, Cr.P.C. The illegal practice which had developed regarding the misuse of the provision of section 550, Cr.P.C. In the Province of Punjab was deprecated with the direction that a copy of that judgment was to be sent to Inspector-General of Police, Punjab and the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab for issuing strict instructions to the subordinate police officers to understand the provisions of sections 550 and 523, Cr.P.C. Properly and to apply the same strictly. It appears that no such instructions were either given or if given were thrown to the wind by the concerned police officers because the same illegal practice is still badly practised. This case is one of the instances to many of the cases, which come up before the Courts. It is, therefore, directed that the S.P., Jhang shall also hold enquiry on the departmental side against the S.H.O. Concerned as to why the order under section 523, Cr.P.C. Was not obtained from the competent Court regarding the disposal of the cattle which were taken into possession under section 550, Cr.P.C. Meanwhile, the cattle heads shall be given on "Supardari--- to the persons from whom those were recovered.
7. The household articles mentioned in the petition, which were allegedly taken away by the police, have not been found at the police station by the Bailiff as per his report. The petitioner, if aggrieved, may avail any legal remedy available to her under the law, if so advised.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.