' Haider Ali complainant got recorded F.I.R. No,273, dated 27-8-1998 at 12-20 p.m. At Police Station Chhanga Maanga, District Kasur under section 324/148/149/109, Pakistan Penal Code with the allegation that his workshop, wherein the tractors were repaired, was situated on Jhambar Road wherein some boys also learnt the art. On 27-8-1998 at 11-30 a.m. He alongwith Miraj Din and Muhammad Sharif was sitting on the workshop where Saeed Ahmad and Mahmood Ahmad were repairing the tractors. Amanat Ali, Muhammad Amin, Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Farooq arrived on the motorcycles while armed with weapons who fired at him. He was saved. However, Manzoor Ahmad and Mahmood Ahmad were injured. The accused persons made good their escape alongwith the weapons. According to the complainant the occurrence take place at the instance of Maqbool Ahmad and Din Muhammad accused persons who had threatened him in this regard earlier.
2. Expressing that the investigation is not being conducted in accordance with law and his version is not being recorded by the police, Maqbool Ahmad petitioner filed this petition to get issued a writ against the S.H.O., Police Station Chhanga Maanga, District Kasur for fair and impartial investigation and also for recording his version during the investigation.
3. There is no need to get the comments from the police and the filing of the writ petition is enough to make me to further process with this matter. This writ petition has been admitted for regular hearing.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate- General and gone through the record before me. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the fair and impartial investigation is the duty of the Investigating Officer as keeping in view the shape of scale of justice no party should have the impression that the proper investigation has not been conducted. He referred to sections 160, 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure according to which the "witnesses" and "any person" can be joined in the investigation by the Investigation Officer to reach at the right conclusion after analyzing the respective factual and legal stand of the parties. On the contrary the learned Assistant Advocate- General conceded in the matter and scrupulously expressed that it is the duty of the Police Officer to conduct the fair and impartial investigation and to record the version of the accused to avoid the objection of the complainant party regarding his defense being afterthought during the trial.
Since this matter is that of legal importance, I proceed to dispose of the same keeping in view the legal provisions.
5. First of all I would reproduce as under Rule 2 from Chapter 25 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 Volume III:-- "25.2 Powers of Investigating Officers.--- (1) The powers and privileges of a Police Officer making an investigation are detailed in sections 160 to 175, Criminal Procedure Code.
' Any officer so making' an investigation shall invariably issue an order in writing in Form 25.2(1) to any person summoned to attend such investigation and shall endorse on the copy of the order retained by the person so summoned the date and time of his arrival at, and the date and time of his departure from, the place to which he is summoned. The duplicate of the order shall be attached to the case diary.
(2) No avoidable trouble shall be given to any person from whom enquiries are made and no person shall be unnecessarily detained.
(3) It is the duty of an Investigating Officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders.
He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person."
6. The relevant Form No,25.2(1) for summoning the "person" incorporated in the said Police Rules, 1934 is reproduced as follows:--{{TABLE TEXT}} "Chap. XXV Investigation Form No,25.2(1)
Order to require attendance at investigation under sections 160 and 175, Criminal Procedure Code.
' Name..... Son of........... Caste, ......... Resident of........
' Whereas the presence of the aforesaid person is necessary for the purpose of enquiry into the offence reported to have been committed under section at Police Station ; therefore, the said person is hereby directed to appear before the undersigned at (place hour date ) there to give such information relating to the said alleged offence as he may possess. Signature and Designation of issuing Police Officer.
' Date....... Hour....
' Note.--- mentioned in this order attended on at at .... And was permitted to leave on at .... At....
' Dated Sigriature and Designation of issuing Police Officer."
7. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 has made out that the Investigating Officer has to discover the actual facts of the case. He can pass the order to require the attendance of any person during the investigation and for that matter the notice can be and has to be issued to the prosecution witnesses and even to the accused according to Form No,25.2(1) of the Police Rules, 1934 provided therein. In the aforesaid Form 25.2(1) the word "person" instead of the prosecution witness" or the "accused" has been used which projects that the version of the prosecution and the accused has to be recorded and by practically joining them in the investigation to reach at the truth.
8. Now it is proper to refer sections 160, 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sections 160, 161 and first portion of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are reproduced as under:-- "160. Police Officer's power to require attendance of witnesses.--- Any Police Officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required.
161. Examination of witnesses by police.-- (1) Any Police Officer making any investigation under this Chapter or any Police Officer not below such rank as the Provincial Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such Officer may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted'ivith the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2) Such person shall be bound to answer all questions relating-.To such case, put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
(3) The Police Officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section, and if he does so he shall make a separate record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.
162. Statements to police not to be signed, use of such statements in evidence.-- (1) No statement made by any person to Police Officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter shall if reduced into writing be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement on any record thereof whether in a police-diary or otherwise or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose (Save as hereinafter provided) at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made."
9. I would express that the scope of sections 160, 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes actual accused and suspects. The words "any person" in section 160 includes the person(s) of the antagonist parties acquainted with the circumstances of the case and the said section 160 itself is self-explanatory in this respect. The expression "any person" in sections 161 and 162 of the Criminal Procedure would include persons then or ultimately found to be accused. Any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case includes the "accused person" who fills that role because the Investigating Officer supposes him to have committed the crime and must, therefore, be familiar with the facts of the case. Legally and factually the supposition may later prove a fiction but that does not repel the sections nor does the marginal note "examination of witnesses by police" close the matter. Legally the "marginal note" does not control the meaning of the section. The interrogation of an accused and recording of his version is to acquire the true facts with which he is acquainted. To be a witness from a functional angle is =to impart knowledge in respect a relevant fact and that is the purpose of questioning the accused under sections 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so that final opinion in the matter can be expressed by the Investigating Officer after weighing the version of the parties.
10. I would refer to the ruling printed as Syamo Maha Patro and another v. The Emperor AIR 1932 Mad. 391 Full Bench. With respect to the status of an accused in the investigation to get recorded his version, the relevant portion from the aforesaid ruling is reproduced as under for the sake of convenience and academic importance which shall clarify this discussion to an enormous extent:- "Let us take the sections which immediately precede and succeed section 162. Section 160 enables the Police Officer to require by order in writing, the attendance before him of any person, within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case. Section 161 enables a Police Officer to examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Then comes section 162, which says, that no statement made by any person to a Police Officer, shall, if reduced into writing, be signed by the person making it. The section further prohibits the use of such statements in evidence at the trial, subject to and exception. Sections 163 and 164, which follow section 162 deal with statements made by any person, which obviously include statements by witnesses as also any statement or confessions by accused persons. There is no doubt as to the sense in which the words 'any person' are used in section 163, and we may safely take them to include an accused person also. Are we to take the words 'any person' in section 162 as limited to witnesses only, by virtue of sections 160 and 161 which precede it? It is true that the marginal notes to these sections mention 'witnesses'. But the working of the sections is wide and general, and cannot be taken to mean witnesses only and not persons suspected or accused of an offence. Moreover, the scope of section 161 seems to be wider than that of section 160. The power of the Police Officer to examine orally any person under section 161 is not limited to the case of persons whose attendance before him, he may require by an order in writing under section 160. Any person (whether a witness or an accused) whom he cannot under section 160 summon to appear before him, may still be examined by him orally under section 161, if he can have access to such a man in any other way. In construing a section the marginal notes should not be looked into, and cannot be a criterion for determining the meaning and scope of the section. This principle has been clearly laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Balraj Kunwar v. Jagatpal Singh (8) at p.406, in the following passage- ' It is well-settled that marginal notes to the section of an Act of Parliament cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the Act. The contrary opinion originated in a mistake, and it has been exploded long ago. There seems to be no reason for giving the marginal notes in an Indian Statute any greator authority than the marginal notes in an English Act of Parliament'.
' That being so the use of the word, 'witnesses' in the marginal notes of sections 160 and 161 should not be a guide for construing the wording of the sections themselves. Reference was made to Queen-Empress v. Saminada (9), in support of the contention, that section 160 does not apply to an accused person. The exact point that was decided in that case is that this section does not empower a Police Officer to summon an accused person to appear and answer the complaint made against him. There is nothing in this ruling to indicate that a Police Officer even without having recourse to the procedure under section 160, cannot examine orally an accused person under section 161. It seems to me that the expression ' any person' in section 161 does not exclude a person suspected or accused of an offence. There is nothing repugnant in supposing such a person to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, it may be safely taken that even from the stand point of context, the expression 'any person' contained in section 162, includes an accused person also, and is not confined to witnesses only."
11. The assertion of the writ petitioner/accused is that even though he claims to have been admitted to pre-arrest bail, the police is not joining him in the investigation to record his version.
My view is that the simple reason for such a recalcitrant attitude/working is that custodial interrogations are generally favored and liked by the Police Officers as in the case of the physical remand of an accused the Police Officer, according to his whims, is in a safe and better position to effect coercion which is avoided by the accused and about which type of working of the police muss fuss is emanating in the country. It is the duty of the Police Officer to summon the accused even if he is enjoying the concession of pre-arrest bail and it is not the liability of the accused to himself go to the police to join the investigation. Rather it is a matter of common knowledge that his presence/arrival, even if made by him, is not recorded by the police. As expressed above, under Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 the Investigating Officer is bound to summon the person i,e, the witnesses and the accused and the wisdom behind is to record the version of the accused who (Investigating Officer)- has to give his final verdict after verifying the divergent contentions of the parties and discovery of actual facts of the case.
12. I would also refer to Article 25(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which provides that "all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. As such during the investigation no discrimination can be made between the contesting parties and if it is made the petitions for transfer of investigation are not only made before the Superior Police Officers, the Constitutional jurisdiction of- this Court is also invoked when in some cases the discretion is used in favor of the accused for conclusion of the investigation to a logical end. In case the oral and documentary material being produced by the complainant party is collected during the investigation; it is also the right of the accused to place his oral as well as written evidence according to his version during the investigation before the Investigating Officer. I am tempted to express that the justice is not to be administered in the Court. Even during the investigation the police has to do the justice to the parties. It is on the basis of this theory that section .169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been incorporated to play the legal role whereby the police is empowered to get discharged the accused person(s) and to get cancelled the F.I.R., if there is no material against the accused due to deficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Court. Practically the verification of the divergent versions of the parties can motivate the Officer In charge of a Police Station in this regard. It is on the basis of weighing the material in favor of the complainant that the challan is submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial of the accused. In short it is on the basis of the collection of material from both the contesting parties i,e, the complainant party and the antagonist party i,e, the accused party that the F.I.R. Is got cancelled and accused, discharged or the challah is submitted for the trial of the accused. The aforesaid relevant result can be achieved if the stands of both the parties are before the Investigating Officer which are also analyzed by him.
13. Yet another aspect of the matter cannot be lost sight of which is to this effect that if the version of the accused is not recorded during the investigation, his defense in the trial may be considered to be afterthought. Generally the plea of self-defense, the plea of alibi and that of non- participation in the occurrence etc. Etc. Are agitated by the accused during the investigation who can produce even the written material to strengthen the same and thereafter, during the trial he can prove his defense otherwise he has to face the aforesaid objection/situation.
14. The plea of the accused for recording his version is not attended to by the Police Officers with all the seriousness and rather this aspect is ignored by him. To achieve the relief the accused has to get transferred the investigation or make the application(s) before the Superior Police Officers or file the writ petition as in the instant case. The case-law is not bereft of the judicial decision to the effect that due to the presence of the cross-version got recorded during the investigation even the concession of bail is allowed to him or he is awarded the lesser sentence or even he is acquitted.
The experience is that the Police Officers adopt autocratic attitude and proceed in routine under the impression and prospective goal of getting convicted the accused. The golden principle that nobody should be condemned unheard is also applicable at the investigation stage. Even the satin was not punished without being heard. It is proper to express that the fountain of justice has its basis on fair and impartial investigation which cannot be achieved unless the version of the accused is also recorded by the police during the investigation.
15. In matters of offences on the basis of documentary evidence the importance of recording the version of the accused is that of more importance as in case the execution or ownership is denied further steps have to be taken during the investigation to lay the foundation of the strength of the prosecution case. The services of the Handwriting Experts are obtained thereof.
16. An accused is also entitled to reap the legal benefit of Article 4(1) of I H the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which cannot be suspended even during the Emergency, if imposed, having been incorporated in Part-I (Introductory) which provides that "to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen wherever he may and of every other person for the tittle being within Pakistan". Thus, without recording the version of the accused an investigation conducted by the competent person cannot be said to be fair and impartial as well as according to the prevalent law of the land. Rather the refusal in the matter on the part of the Investigating Officer is simply his recalcitrant attitude towards following the rule of law and only the autocratic view of the matter away and astray from rule of law is taken thereof. It is the right of the accused to be treated in accordance with law.
17. The recording of the version of the accused is of that much legal necessity that in some cases on the basis of the registration of single First Information Report, after making the analysis of the divergent versions, two challans are submitted before the Court of competent jurisdiction wherein both the antagonist parties are treated as the accused and the Court has to determine about the falsehood or otherwise of respective assertions/allegations. Thus, in this way the investigation, by joining both the parties has to lay the foundation of administration of justice so that the truth emerges and stands established.
18. The presence of divergent cogent versions of the parties to a criminal case can also form the basis of the admission of the accused to bail and such a situation can arise if the fair and impartial investigation is conducted and the version of the parties are reduced into black and white during the investigation. Hence the accused cannot be denied to get recorded his version. It is not the prerogative of the Investigating Officer to travel on his own whims to deprive the accused to get recorded his version which is his Constitutional and statutory right.
19. The only irresistible view which can be expressed is that an Investigating Officer is duty bound to record the version of the accused and the accused is entitled to state orally as well as to produce the documentary evidence with respect to his version even during the investigation. No grace is shown to the accused if his version is recorded during the investigation. It is the Constitutional and statutory right of the accused to get recorded his version during the investigation and the Investigating Officer has to form and give his opinion after collecting the divergent versions of the parties keeping in view the shape of scale of justice at that stage as well.
20. For what has been said above, I accept this writ petition and direct the S.H.O. Police Station Change Manga, District Kasur to hold the fair and impartial investigation and to record the version of the accused persons. No order as to costs.
Petition accepted.
1999 P Cr. L.1 1209 [Karachi] Before Rashid A. Razvi and Ata-ur-Rahman, JJ Agha KHUDA BUX, ADVOCATE---Petitioner versus THE STATE and 3 others---Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,244 of 1998, decided on5th October, 1998.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V. Of 1898)--- ----S. 491---Police Rules, 1934, Rr.22.45 & 22.48---Habeas corpus petition---No entry about arrest of detenu in daily station diary/Roznamcha of police station---Detenu was found to be in police lock-up by Bailiff of Court---Many entries were found blank in the daily diary/Roznamcha--- Station House Officer of police station was directed to pay a sum of Rs,5,000 as cost to detenu and Superintendent of Police was directed to submit enquiry report against concerned police officials to the High Court. [pp. 1211, 1213] A & E
(b) Police Rules, 1934--- ----Rr.
22.45 & 22.48---Police station daily diary/Roznamcha---Purpose--Purpose of such Roznamcha is to keep complete record of all events which have taken place at the police station---Events include arrest and detention of persons in lock-up. [p. 1211] B
(c) Police Rules, 1934--- ----R.
22.48---Police station daily diary/Roznamcha---Responsibility of duty officer of police station--- No entry was supposed to be left blank in the Roznamcha---All events which had taken place in the police station had to be recorded in daily diary/Roznamcha---Entry in daily diary/Roznamcha of arrest of a person, was in addition to memo. Of arrest---Blank entries found in daily diary/Roznamcha reflected mala fides and of police officials---Concerned police officials were liable for penal as well as disciplinary action. [p. 1212] C
(d) Police Rules, 1934--- R.
22.45---Police station daily diary/Roznamcha---Removal from police station during visit of an officer of High Court was not only an act which was deplorable, but also amounted to misconduct.
[p. 1213] D Petitioner in person. Mian Khan Malik, A.A.-G. (on Court's notice).
' 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.