' Muhammad Mukhtar former A.S.-I. Police Station Jhawarian, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha was served with the following show-cause notice:--- ' You A.S.-I. Muhammad Mukhtar No 151/S while posted to Police Station Jhawarian, did not perform your office duties in an appropriate menner; that you registered/investigated case FIR. No 216, dated .18-12-1997 under section 324/34, P.P.C., Jhawarian on the report of Muhammad Gulzar son of Allah Baldish caste Lilia resident of Kahut against Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Fayyaz, caste Awan resident of Kotli Awan. During investigation, accused Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Fayyaz were .Arrested on 1-1-1998. One pistol .30 bore was, recovered from the possession of accused Ghulan Abbas regarding which case F:I.R. No,I, dated 1-1-1998 ander the Arms Ordinance was registered. Accused was sent to judicial lock-up and challan prepared on 3-1-1998. Ghulam Abbas accused presented an application before the urdersigned contending therein that false case F.I.R.
No,216 of 1997 under section 324/34, P.P.C., Police Station Jhawarian has been registered against them. Accordingly, S.D.P.O. Sillanwali was directed to verify the investigation and report true fats.
' S.D.P.O. Sillanwali made a thorough probe int6 the matter, summoned both the parties, and heard them at length. As per his findings, no firing was resorted and none was allured, so section 324, P.P.C. Is not attracted. He finally concluded that the case is false and recommended for cancellation and action under section 182, P.P.C. Against the complainant for false registration of the case. You have thus conducted defective investigation of the case and sent the innocent persons behind the bars without any legal justification, which speaks of your inefficiency, warranting disciplinary action against you.
2. Appellant replied to the notice stating that on the basis of the evidence recorded, he got a case registered vide F.I.R. No,216 under section 324/34, P.P.C. Against Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Fayyaz on the complaint of Muhammad Gulzar and during investigation it was found that the accused fired at Muhammad Gulzar with their pistol but luckily the complainant was not injured: .30 bore pistol being unlicensed the case under Arms Ordinance was also registered.
3. An inquiry was got conducted by S.D.P.O. Sillanwali and found that no doubt the accused was armed with an unlicensed pistol for which a case under Arms Ordinance was rightly registered but since the firearm was not fired registration of the case under section 324/34, P.P.C. Was totally unjustified. The said case vide F.I.R. No,216 was later on cancelled.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Sargodha after hearing the appellant and considering his written reply, found the explanation unsatisfactory and gave due weight to the inquiry conducted by D.S.P.
Sillanwali. The appellant was, therefore, found guilty for registration of a false case vide F.I.R. No,216 under section 324/34, P.P.C. And in consequence was awarded major punishment by reducing him to the rank of Head Constable with immediate effect. Appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha and so was his revision by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore on 6-4-1999, all these orders have been challenged in the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant not associated with the inquiry conducted by S.D.P.O. Sillanwali and that the appellant was duty bound to register a case under, section 324/34, P.P.C. If the complaint made in writing by the complainant disclosed a cognizable offence. It was stated that on the, basis of the evidence the case was registered for attempt to murder for which the appellant could not be held responsible because of difference of opinion by another Investigating Officer. Conversely learned District Attorney on the other hand supported the impugned orders.
6. I have attended to the arguments of the respective counsel and have also gone through the record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant while arguing the appeal informed me that the complainant along with two witnesses went to the police station for the registration of the case on 18-12-1997 and after recording the F.I.R. The appellant recorded the statements of the two witnesses, of Muhammad Gulzar complainant, and straighaway arrested the accused. This admission on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant itself shows that the appellant considered the statements of the complainant and his witnesses as gospel truth and did not bother to go to the spot, ascertain whether any empty was to be found from the place of occurrence, associate the people of the locality in the investigation and thereafter weigh the evidence from both sides, after the examination of the accused and his defence witness. All this exercise was done by D.S.P.
Sillanwali, who was asked to conduct an inquiry. I have gone through the inquiry report which manifests that the appellant did not record any evidence on the spot to the contrary the people of the locality where the alleged occurrence is stated, to have occurred, stated with authority that no one fired, although a fracas took place between the complainant and the accused. A number of persons appeared to testify about the innocence of the accused. Neither any empty was found from the place of occurrence nor there were any marks of violence seen on the ground.
8. As far as the association of the appellant in the inquiry, there was no need as facts were already proved by the inability of the appellant to go further than the recording of the statements of the complainant and his two witnesses.
9. Liberty of a person was involved which was wrongly curtailed' by taking him into custody, no mitigating circumstance exists in favour of the appellant. The appeal being without merit, is