' This Constitutional petition seeks order, dated 31-3-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, to be declared as illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby hearing to the petitioner was refused while proceeding under section 22-A, Cr.P.C.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that respondent No,4 filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. On 9-3-2004 for registration of a criminal case against the persons nominated therein, before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, which was entrusted to respondent No,1 for disposal and decision in accordance with law. Respondent No:1 summoned a report from the Police Station Athari Hazari, District Jhang, which was submitted on 24-3-2004. Petitioner moved an application for being impleaded as a party and hearing before any order on that application of respondent.
No,4, Learned Additional Sessions Judge (respondent No,1) dismissed the application of the petitioner through the order impugned.
3. Respondent No,4 in response to notice has appeared through his counsel and I have heard both the learned counsel for, the parties. Respondent No,1 proceeded on an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. For registration of a criminal case. Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Reads as under:-- "22-A. Powers of Justices of the Peace.--- (1) A Justice of the Peace for any local area shall, for the purpose of making an arrest have within such area all the powers of the Police Officer referred to in section 54 and of an officer-in-charge of a police station referred to in section '55.
(2) A Justice of Peace making an arrest in exercise of any powers under subsection (1) shall, forthwith, take or cause to be taken the person arrested before the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station and furnish such officer with a report as to the circumstances of the arrest and such officer shall thereupon rearrest the person.
(3) A Justice of the Peace of any local area shall have powers, within such area, to call upon any member of the police force on duty to aid him.---
(a) in taking or preventing the escape of any person who has participated in the commission of any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having so participated; and
(b) in the prevention of crime in general and, in particular, in the prevention of a breach of the peace or a disturbance of the public tranquillity.
(4) Where a member of the police force on duty has been called upon to render aid under subsection (3) such call shall be deemed to have been made by a competent authority.
(5) A Justice of the Peace for any local area may, in accordance with such rules as may be made by the Provincial Government---
(a) issue a certificate as. To the identity of any person residing within such area, or
(b) verify any document brought before him by any such person, or
(c) attest any such document required by or under any law for the time being in force to be attested by a Magistrate, and until the contrary is proved, any certificate so issued shall be presumed to be correct' and any document so verified shall be deemed to be duly verified, and any document so attested shall be deemed to have been as fully attested as if he had been a Magistrate.
(6) An ex officio Justice of the Peace may issue appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding---
(i) non-registration 'of a criminal case;
(ii) transfer of investigation from one police officer to another.
(iii) neglect, failure or excess committed by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties.
' The above reproduced provisions of law gives 'a power to the learned Sessions Judges to direct registration of criminal case, in case of failure of the police officials to discharge their statutory obligations vested in them under section 154, Cr.P.C. Since this basic provision of which enforcement is being done by the learned Sessions Judges does not envisage any hearing before registration of criminal case, hearing of an accused person before passing of any order under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Is not understandable. This Court earlier in the case of Saeed Ahmed and others v. Naseer Ahmed and others PLD 2000 Lah. 208 held that during the proceedings for registration of criminal case this Court while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction, was not obliged to hear the accused/respondent in the petition even if they were present, which was held to be limited only to the extent of directing the concerned authorities to register a criminal case. This Court again in the case of Sana Ullah v. S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat and 3 others PLD 2003 Lah. 228 while interpreting section 154, Cr.P.C. Held that words used in section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 "every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence" pertains only to the information so supplied and do not pertain to actual commission of the cognizable offence and that information supplied should be about an alleged commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of its truthfulness or otherwise and concerned police official has only to satisfy himself only to the extent that the information is in respect of a cognizable offence. It was also held that at the time of first information report, accused persons named in the complaint, have no right of hearing. A similar view was taken by the Sindh High Court in the case of Mst. Gul Reza and others v. The State and others 2002 PCr.LJ 9. It thus, flows that if there is information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, it falls under section 154, Cr.P.C. And a Police Officer is under statutory obligation, without entering into inquiry and without hearing the accused persons, to enter it in the prescribed register. For this exercise, the only pre-condition need is that the information should disclose a cognizable offence, on the face of the allegations. Failure of the concerned Police Officer to register a complaint so made amounts to failure to discharge statutory obligations, which attracts provisions of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Since no hearing is needed for proceeding under section 154, Cr.P.C. Consequently, there is no such obligation on the learned Additional Sessions Judge, seeking enforcement of those provisions.
4. For what has been discussed above, I am constrained to hold that application by the petitioner for their impleadment and hearing in the proceedings under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Was misconceived and thus, was rightly dismissed. The order passed within the competence and according to the provisions of law, cannot be declared as prayed. This Constitutional petition has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed.