1. ' This order will also dispose of Writ Petition No, 2087 of 1978, as similar points of law and facts are involved in both the cases.
2. ' First Information Report No, 118 was lodged on 26-3-1978 at Police Station A-Division, Rawalpindi under section 3/6 of the Foodstuffs Control Act as well as Martial Law Order No 5. According to the first information report Samundar Khan who was alleged to have hoarded atta in large quantity, in his godown was apprehended by the police with the aid of Sh. Bashir Ahmad, Assistant Food Controller (G). According to the F. I. R. 280 bags of atta were recovered therefrom and taken into possession. Since no valid order could be produced by Samundar Khan in getting atta bags in such a large quantity in his possession therefore, he was also arrested.
3. ' It is contended that the police offizial concerned later on submitted complete challan of the case involving Samundar Khan only. Later on one Muhammad Rafique brother of Samundar Khan as well as Samundar Khan himself submitted applications before the Sub-Martial Law Administrator alleging that the godown in question had actually been sub-leased to the petitioners on 17th of March, 1978 who were carrying on atta business there. It was submitted that the atta bags recovered from the godown belonged to them and not to Samundar Khan who was only carrying on Goods Forwarding Agency business. At this the Sub-Martial Law Administrator asked the Superintendent of Police to apprehend the petitioners so that the matter may be fully ascertained in its real perspectives.
4. Mr. Mazahar Hussain, City Inspector of Police who is present in the Court submits that under the orders of the Martial Law Authority he is further investigating the matter and will submit his report after the investigation is completed which according to him will not be completed without the apprehension of the petitioners.
5. The circumstances discussed above would show that the petitioners have been specifically named by the Martial Law Authorities to be apprehended and joined in the investigation by the police officer concerned.
6. ' It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since his clients have not been so far accused of the offence by the Investigating Officer, therefore, their arrest cannot be effected. It may be so, however, fresh report can be submitted to the Court concerned even after the submission of the challan and it will be for the Court to see as to which of the reports is to be relied upon. In the circumstances the Police Officers concerned are competent to hold further inquiry and probe and would be at liberty to arrest the petitioners if they feel after due investigation that they are accused of the offence levelled against them. Till then their arrest would not be effected. In that case the petitioners would be at liberty to make application for grant of bail before the Summary Military Court concerned.
7. ' Both the cases are hereby disposed of in the terms stated above.