' This is a petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. In respect of detenu Gul Muhammad, who has claimed in the petition is working as Ward Assistant in Liaqat Medical College Hospital, Hyderabad. On 24- 9-1998 while he was on duty, respondent No,3 namely S.H.O. Of Market Police Station and respondent No,4 namely Perwaz, A.S.-I. Of Market Police Station, arrested the said detent and took him to Police Station Market. Petitioner has prayed for the following relieves:-- "It is, therefore, prayed that this Honorable Court be pleased to direct the respondents Nos.3 and 4 to produce the detent before this Honourable Court and after recording his statement he be set at liberty.
' Also issue directions for registration of a case against the respondents Nos.3 and 4 for wrongful confinement of the above named detent.
' Direct the defendant/respondents Nos.2 and 4 to pay the compensation. Any other appropriate order as deemed fit and proper."
2. On 28-9-1998 this Court appointed Deputy Registrar to inspect the lock-ups and all other adjacent rooms of Police Station Market, Hyderabad and to ascertain whether detent Gull Muhammad son of Qaim Khan is being detained there; if so, to enquire from the Police Officer on duty at the station or to inspect Roznamcha in order to ascertain the date of arrest. On the same day at above? 3-00 p.m., the Deputy Registrar visited the Market Police Station and filed his report on the next day. The relevant portion of which reads as follows:-- "The Deputy Registrar visited the lock-up room of police station where detenu Gul Muhammad son of Qaim Khan was detained. He informed the Deputy Registrar that he has been detained there by S.H.O. Market Police Station since last about 3/4 days without any case or being produced in any Court of law.
' The Deputy Registrar enquired from the Head Constable as to why and under what authority detenu Gul Muhammad son of. Qaim Khan has been detained there. He was totally unable to say anything about his detention except stating that S.H.O. Mushtaq Talpur or Duty Officer Naveed can clarify the position.
' I would like to bring it to the notice of Honorable Court that along with detenu Gul Muhammad son of Qaim Khan ten (10) other persons were detained there namely: Sardar Ali son of Dhani Bux, Asif Pathan son of Fazal Rehman, Ahsan Ahmed son of Ahmed Nawaz, Ibrahim son of Muhammad Shah (hailing from Dera Ghazi Khan), Gul Muhammad son of Fateh Muhammad, Rashid son of Maher i Kamran son of Maqsood Ahmed, A. Jabbar son of Abdul Sattar, Salman son of Choudhry Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Usman son of Muhammad Subhan. All the detenus have complained to Deputy Registrar of their illegal detention which ranges from one day to eight days without any case or being produced in any Court of law."
3. On 29-9-1998 detent Gul Muhammad was produced who was examined, who confirmed the fact about his arrest on 24-9-1998. He further informed that he was released at about 10-00 a.m., on the same day and that during his 5 days detention in the Market Police Station, he was never produced before any Court of law or before any Magistrate nor his remand was obtained. On the same day, we have also examined S.H.O. Mushtaq Ali, who denied to have arrested the detent on 24-9-1998 but stated that detent was arrested by A.S.-I. Allah Bachayo in Crime No,715 of 1998 on 28th September, 1998 at about 8-20 a.m., and was confined in the lock-up of Market Police Station for the purpose of interrogation. He has further admitted that there are some 7 more detents and that their arrests have been noted in the Station diary/Roznamcha. He has also stated about the entry of arrest of detent Gul Muhammad in the daily station diary/Roznamcha. The station drary/Roznamcha was produced in the Court and was perused by us. There is no such entry of either showing arrest of detenu Gul Muhammad or arrest of any of the persons named above in the report of Deputy Registrar, of this Court. We have asked learned Additional Advocate-General, to explain this irregularity. He has pointed out Entry No,21 showing arrest of detenu Gul Muhammad which entry is subsequent to the visit of Deputy Registrar. On perusal of station diary of Market Police Station, we have further noted that Entries Nos.33, 38, 44, 50 and 52 all, dated 27th September, 1998, were lying blank. No explanation was offered by Additional Advocate-General as to why these entries were left blank despite the fact that on 30th September, 1998 when this matter was being called by us, learned Additional Advocate-General had assistance of S.S.P., Hyderabad namely, Capt. Zafar Iqbal Awan, P.D.S.P. Ghulam Sarwar Jamali and the S.H.O. Of Market Police Station. However, learned Additional Advocate-General as well as all the Police Officers present in Court conceded to the fact that such practice is not permissible in law.
4. Rule 22.45 of the Police Rules, 1934 provides maintenance of several books, records and registers.
One such book is the station diary, commonly known as Register No,2 which has been further defined in Rule 22.48. The purpose of daily Station Diary is to keep complete record of all events which have taken place at the police station. This also includes arrest and detention of the persons in the lock-ups. It will be advantageous if Rule 22.48 of the Police Rules, 1934 is reproduced which reads as follows:-- "22.48 Register No,II.--- (1) The Daily Diary shall be maintained in accordance with section 44 of the Police Act. It shall be in Form 22.48(1) and shall be maintained by means of carbon copying process.
' There shall be two copies. One will remain in the police station register and the other shall be despatched to a gazetted officer to be designated by the Superintendent of Police or to the Superintendent of Police himself every day at the hour fixed in this behalf.
' Shortly before the class of each quarter, books containing the proper number of pages for then suing three months shall be issued to police stations by the Superintendent. The Superintendent shall fix the hours at which station diaries shall be daily closed with reference to the hour of dispatch of the post messenger.
(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 or non-official, coming or brought to the police station for any purpose whatsoever.
(3) All entries in the station diary shall be made by the Officer-in-charge of the police station or by the station clerk. Literate officers making a report shall read the report recorded and append their signatures. Every matter recorded in which diary shall be so recorded as soon as possible; each separate entry shall be numbered and the hour at which it was made shall commence each such entry. If the hour at which the information, or otherwise, containing such entries reaches the police station differs from the hour at which such entry was made, both hours shall be stated. As soon as an entry has been made in the diary, a line shall be drawn across the page immediately below it.
(4) The opening entry each day shall give the name of each person in custody, the offence of which he is accused, and the date and hour of his arrest, the name of each accused person at large on bail or recognizance and the date of his release on such security.
' The last entry each day shall show (a) the balance of cash in hand as shown in the cash account, and (b) the balance of the cattle pound account."
Perusal of above rules indicates that the duty officer or any other officer responsible to maintain police station diary/Roznamcha cannot leave any entry blank in the same and has to record "all events" which have taken place at the police station. This also includes visits of the outsiders whether they are officials or non-officials, they cannot ignore the fact of making arrest of a person in the Roznamcha. Such entry should be in addition to the memo. Of arrest, in order to safeguard the fundamental right of the citizens. The blank entries found in the station diary of Market Police Station reflects mala fides and ill-will of the police officials. They were not in a position to explain the reasons for noncompliance of the Police Rules. This is a serious lapse on the part of S.H.O. And other duty officer of the Market Police Station, Hyderabad for which they arer liable for penal as well as disciplinary action.
5. As a result of above discussion and by short order on 30-9-1998, we have disposed of the above petition in the following manner:-- "S.S.P., Hyderabad has placed Photostat copies of show-cause notice, dated 30th September, 1998, issued to S.I.P. Navid Ahmed Khan under Rules 6(3)(b)(i) of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988, through which the said Police Officer has been put under suspension and was required to show cause why the Roznamcha was not produced before the Deputy Registrar of this Court on his visit on 29-9-1998. Under the same provision another show-cause notice has been issued to S.H.O. Mir Mushtaque for illegally detaining 9 persons in Police Statiori Market. It is observed that the removal of Roznamcha/station diary from the premises of a police station during the visit of an officer of High Court is not only an act which is deplorable, but amounts to misconduct.
' For the reasons to be recorded separately, this petition stands disposed of as it has served its purpose with the following directions:--
(i) That the respondent No,3 namely, Mir Mushtaque, S.H.O. Market (under suspension) shall pay Rs,5,000 as cost to the detenu which he shall deposit within 30 days with the Additional Registrar of this Court.
(ii) That the S.S.P., Hyderabad will submit his report within 45 days about the fate of the abovementioned two disciplinary proceedings initiated against the two Police Officers as mentioned above. Such report to be filed with the Registrar of this Court at the Principal seat...."
6. The above are the reasoning for the said short order.