Summary: Background: This case pertains to the appointments of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) in the Sindh Police Department’s IT Cadre. In 2004, 113 individuals were recruited as ASIs (Computer). Over time, these individuals were transferred to the Executive Branch of the police department. The Sindh High Court allowed a constitutional petition filed by some of these ASIs, which challenged their return to the IT Cadre after serving in the Executive Branch for nearly 20 years. The Province of Sindh and others (appellants) challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the original cadre assignments should be upheld. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether ASIs appointed in the IT Cadre should be transferred back to their original cadre after serving in the Executive Branch for nearly 20 years. ----- 2) Whether the newly impleaded respondents (appointed in the IT Cadre in 2019) were condemned unheard, violating the principle of audi alteram partem. ----- 3) Whether the High Court's impugned judgment, allowing the respondents to continue in the Executive Branch, was valid. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ASIs' Cadre Assignment: The Supreme Court upheld the right of the ASIs (Computer) recruited in 2004 to continue serving in the Executive Branch, emphasizing that these ASIs had undergone police training and served in executive roles for nearly two decades. The court ruled that their continued service in the Executive Branch would not be cited as a precedent for future cases. Their seniority and promotions would be governed by the law and rules. ----- Impleadment of New Respondents: The court set aside the adverse observations made by the High Court against the newly impleaded respondents (those appointed in the IT Cadre in 2019) because they were not given an opportunity to be heard. The principle of audi alteram partem was violated, and as a result, the adverse findings against them were expunged. ----- High Court’s Judgment: While the court allowed the respondents to remain in the Executive Branch, it did not allow this practice to set a precedent. Additionally, the court directed that all seniority and promotions must follow the established rules and regulations. ----- Citations/Precedents: Gul Hassan Jatoi v. Faqir Muhammad Jatoi (2016 SCMR 1254): The court referred to this case to emphasize that the cadre of subordinate police officials should be determined by their recruitment, training, and service experience. Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 & Rules: Applied for regulating the recruitment and service conditions of non-uniformed personnel, such as those in the IT Cadre, as opposed to the Police Act, 1861, which governs uniformed personnel. The appeal was disposed of in the above terms, affirming the service of ASIs in the Executive Branch while ensuring that no similar actions be used as precedent in the future.

Summary: ''Rights of an accused under custody elaborated. Duties of the police and Magistrates explained.'' ----- Issues:Whether Muhammad Azam was illegally detained by the police officials.The legality of the actions taken by the police after the court's order to produce the detainee.The procedural conduct of the police and the magistrate involved in the case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court, presided by Justice Ali Zia Bajwa, found that Muhammad Azam was indeed in illegal custody and highlighted multiple procedural irregularities in his arrest and detention. The court noted the police's failure to produce Azam promptly and their attempt to legitimize his custody after the court's intervention. This conduct was considered evasive and led to a show-cause notice for contempt against the police officer responsible.An inquiry confirmed Azam's illegal detention, resulting in his discharge from the criminal case and the initiation of actions against the delinquent police officials. The court emphasized the constitutional and statutory protections against illegal detention, including Articles 4, 9, 10, and 14 of the Constitution, and relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.The court criticized the magistrate's mechanical approval of Azam's detention for a Test Identification Parade (TIP) without thorough consideration of the evidence, deeming it a non-speaking order. The judgment underscored the necessity for magistrates to exercise due diligence and transparency in remand decisions to prevent unlawful detentions.Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ petition, reiterating the fundamental rights of individuals in custody and the responsibility of magistrates and police to uphold these rights. The show cause notice against the Station House Officer was withdrawn, leaving disciplinary matters to the police's internal accountability mechanisms.------Citations/Precedents:Ismaeel vs. The State - 2010 SCMR 27: Highlighted the sanctity of rights under Articles 4, 9, and 10 of the Constitution.Muhammad Siddiq vs. Province of Sindh - PLD 1992 Karachi 358: Discussed the importance of arrest reports under Section 62 of the Code for judicial scrutiny of police actions.Khizer Hayat vs. Inspector General of Police (Punjab) - PLD 2005 Lahore 470: Emphasized the supervisory role of Area Magistrates in police investigations.Ghulam Sarwar vs. The State - 1984 P.Cr.L.J. 2588: Criticized the practice of presenting accused individuals before a Magistrate outside regular court hours.Important Note: The court underscored the need for magistrates and police officials to diligently uphold the law, particularly regarding illegal detention and the treatment of detainees. It highlighted the importance of adherence to legal protocols, including the necessity of presenting detainees before a magistrate within specified timeframes and ensuring that any extension of custody is lawfully sanctioned.

Summary: ''Articles: 199, 04, 10, 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Sections: 46, 54, 61, 62, 167, 551 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.Rules: 23.17, 26.8 Police Rules, 1934.I) Arrest and detention: Arrest of a person in one case is arrest in all cases already registered against the person.II) Information Sheet ( Parcha 12) under police Rules, 1934.III) No action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation, or property of any citizen under the Constitution is permissible, subject to law.IV) Right of fair trial: every person for determination of his civil rights and obligation or in any criminal charge against him shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process.V) Superior Courts jealously safeguard the rights of citizens. On release in one case, re-arrested of a person in another case(s) already registered against such person, prior to his arrest, is not warranted by Law'' ---- The petitioner sought judicial intervention to obtain information about criminal cases and inquiries registered against him, emphasizing his right to this information under Article 19-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to access information in matters of public importance.The court's deliberation touched upon various legal and constitutional provisions regarding arrest and detention, notably Sections 46, 54, 61, 62, and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), and Police Rules, 1934. These legal frameworks outline the procedure for arrest without a warrant, the reporting of such arrests, and the permissible duration of police custody. The court highlighted the necessity for law enforcement to adhere to these legal mandates to ensure that arrests and detentions are conducted lawfully and do not infringe upon the fundamental rights of individuals.The judgment also reflected on the broader constitutional protections afforded to individuals, including Articles 4, 9, 10, and 10-A of the Constitution, which safeguard the rights to legal treatment, life, liberty, and fair trial. The court underscored the importance of these articles in protecting individuals from unlawful actions by the state that could detrimentally affect their life, liberty, body, reputation, or property.The court criticized the practice of re-arresting individuals in successive cases after they secure bail in one case, labeling it as an illegal practice that undermines the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. Drawing from the principles established in the cases "Mst. Razia Pervez and another vs. The Senior Superintendent of Police Multan and others" (1992 P Cr LJ 131) and "Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad vs. E-Movers (Pvt) Limited" (2022 SCMR 1021), the judgment emphasized the sanctity of personal liberty and the due process of law.The Peshawar High Court directed the respondents to provide the petitioner with the requested information about the criminal cases and inquiries against him. It further ordered that the respondents refrain from the practice of re-arresting individuals in a manner that violates their constitutional rights. The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding the constitutional guarantees of fair treatment, liberty, and justice, ensuring that state actions remain within the bounds of law and due process.

Summary: ''Sections 371A/371B PPC shall not be attracted against copulation in a brothel house.'' --- The main argument for seeking bail was that Sections 371A and 371B PPC do not apply to individuals found in objectionable conditions in a brothel house, and running a brothel itself is not an offense under these sections. It was also questioned whether the police had the authority to enter such premises without a warrant.The Deputy Prosecutors General argued that prostitution is a societal menace, and the police are authorized to enter suspected places without a warrant under the Police Order, 2002, to take legal action against those engaged in immoral activities. They also pointed out that Section 294 PPC, which prohibits obscene acts in public places, could be applicable.The court analyzed the relevant legal provisions, including Sections 371A, 371B PPC, and the Punjab Suppression of Prostitution Ordinance, 1961. It concluded that these sections do not apply when consensual sexual intercourse takes place in a brothel house. Instead, the appropriate law to prohibit such activities is the Punjab Suppression of Prostitution Ordinance, 1961, which specifically prohibits the operation of brothels.The court also discussed the authority of the police to enter premises without a warrant and cited Article 4 (I) of the Police Order, 2002, which allows them to enter places of disorderly character without a warrant. Additionally, Section 294 PPC was mentioned as a provision to deal with obscene acts in public places.Based on the analysis, the court ruled that the petitioners could not be charged under Sections 371A and 371B PPC. Instead, if they were engaged in sexual intercourse, it would be considered fornication under Section 496B PPC. Prosecution for fornication can only be initiated through a complaint under Section 203C of Cr.P.C.The court concluded that since there was no medico-legal report or other forensic evidence supporting recent intercourse, and no evidence linking Khalida to prostitution or Dildar Abass's house as a brothel, the petitioners' criminal liability would be determined by the trial court. As a result, bail was granted, citing previous cases and emphasizing the importance of preserving an individual's liberty unless exceptional grounds exist to curtail it.In summary, the Lahore High Court allowed the petitioners to be admitted to bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C, subject to certain conditions, and the case would proceed to trial for further inquiry.

Summary: The background of the case reveals that Afridi was apprehended by police officials outside the Peshawar High Court on 11th January 2024. Despite efforts to secure his release, the police denied having him in custody. The petitioner contends that Afridi is a political worker for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and a candidate in the upcoming General Elections. The arrest was deemed illegal, carried out without jurisdiction, and possibly with malafide intent.On 11th January 2024, a preliminary hearing resulted in the Advocate General being put on notice, with instructions to produce Afridi before the court. Afridi was subsequently presented in court. The Assistant Advocate General (AAG) explained that Afridi's arrest was due to a misunderstanding regarding his involvement in a criminal case. The AAG referenced an order from the District & Sessions Judge, Kohat, which inferred that an earlier court order had expired since Afridi failed to appear before the court as required.The petitioner's counsel argued that a previous High Court order (No.6009-P of 2023) had restrained the police from taking any action against Afridi, which is why he didn't appear for the transit bail. The High Court noted that Afridi, a lawyer and political candidate, was arrested despite an order preventing adverse action against him. The court acknowledged the Advocate General's efforts in ensuring Afridi's production and found that his detention was illegal.The court emphasized the constitutional protection of liberty and due process under Articles 4, 9, and 10 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The judgment stressed that depriving a person of liberty without legal justification is a serious matter and violative of law, justice, and fair play.As Afridi was not required for any criminal case, the court ordered his immediate release and prohibited any future actions against him that are not in accordance with law. The petition was converted into a contempt of court petition, and respondents No.1 & 2 were directed to submit a reply within ten days. The case was scheduled for re-listing on 18th January 2024.

Summary: ''Discussion: (1) Dishonest investigation (2) Section 166, 375, 376 & 511 P.P.C. (3) Role of I.O. (4) Section 4 (l) Cr.P.C. read with Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 (5) Section 22 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 (6) Rule 2 (v) of the Sindh Police (E & D) Rules, 1988 (7) Article 4 & 155 of Police Order 2002.'' --- Facts: The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Investigation Wing of Police Station Mominabad, District West, Karachi, was assigned to investigate a rape case involving a minor victim. The petitioner was alleged to have improperly reduced the charge from rape to attempted rape despite substantial evidence confirming the rape, including medical reports and eyewitness accounts. This led to the issuance of a show cause notice, and subsequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The departmental appeal and subsequent appeal to the Sindh Service Tribunal were both dismissed.----Issue: The main issue was whether the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, including his dismissal from service for allegedly converting a rape charge to an attempted rape charge in the investigation, was justified.----Holding: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner was justified based on the overwhelming evidence indicating misconduct in the investigation. The court found no illegality or perversity in the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal.----Reasoning: The court emphasized the crucial role of an Investigation Officer in the criminal justice system and the need for conducting investigations with integrity, impartiality, and in accordance with the law. Given the clear medical evidence and eyewitness accounts establishing the commission of rape, the court found no justification for the petitioner's decision to alter the charge. The court also highlighted the importance of discipline and integrity in the police force and upheld the disciplinary action as being conducted in compliance with due process.----Disposition: The Civil Petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, thereby upholding the disciplinary action against the petitioner, including his dismissal from service. The court's findings were limited to the disciplinary action and did not affect ongoing proceedings related to the original FIR in the rape case, which was to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with the law.

Summary: ''Soft Copy of Station Diary shall be prepared in addition to manual Record. Direction regarding maintenance of Station Diary issued'' --- The petitioner sought the recovery of detainees Shahbaz Ali, Asim, and Tahir Imran from alleged illegal custody. The court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel, Ch. Shahid Pervaiz Kahloon, and the state's representative, Mr. Shahid Nawab Cheema, along with other police officials.The court, in its assessment, considered relevant constitutional provisions, particularly Article 199 of the Constitution of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. During the hearing, the court examined the records and found that, following the filing of the petition, a Bailiff was deputed to recover the detainees. the court delved into Rule 22.45 and Rule 22.48 of the Rules, emphasizing the importance of the Station Diary in ensuring transparency and fairness in police activities. It cited legal provisions and precedents, including the case titled "Mst. ASMAT PARVEEN vs. The STATE and another ? PLD 2021 Lahore 105," which underscored the significance of maintaining a manual Station Diary to prevent fabrication or alteration.The judgment directed strict adherence to these rules and issued clear directions to the concerned police authorities. Additionally, it highlighted the legal consequences of wrong entries in the Station Diary, stressing the accountability of supervisory officers. The court also referred to the amendment in Rules 22.3 and 22.4 through Notification No. 43604/DIG/I.T dated 15-12-2017, emphasizing the dual maintenance of manual and electronic records.Regarding the detainees, the court found that Shahbaz Ali's arrest was regulated under the law, leading to the withdrawal of the petition concerning him by the petitioner. The SHO's report stated that Asim Shafique and Tahir Imran were neither in custody nor required in any criminal case. The court, with these observations, referred the matter to the concerned Superintendent of Police (Operations) for appropriate action.

Summary: Issues:Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal erred in dismissing the service appeal filed by the petitioner.The applicability and procedure of departmental appeals and revisions under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975.----Judgment:The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the Civil Petition, affirming the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal's judgment, holding that the disciplinary action against the petitioner was justified based on the findings of the inquiry officer and the competent authority.----Rationale:The Court observed that the petitioner was provided ample opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry process. The Tribunal meticulously considered the gravity of the allegations and the inquiry proceedings. The Court also clarified the legal framework regarding departmental appeals and revisions under the relevant laws and rules, emphasizing that revisions are not a vested right but are exercised suo motu by the competent authority. The Court referred to precedents to support its interpretation of the legal provisions governing departmental appeals and revisions.----Citations and Precedents Relied on by the Court:Ahmad Ali vs. Inspector-General, Punjab Police and others (1990 SCMR 1450): This case highlighted that the Service Tribunal does not condone delays resulting from the filing of revisions where no right to such revision exists under the special law.--Muhammad Yaqoob vs. District Police Officer, District Sahiwal and others (2006 SCMR 310): This precedent established that a civil servant cannot take advantage of the revision provision under the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, to extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal, as no such right to file a revision as a matter of right is provided under the special law.

Summary: Background: The petitioner applied for the post of constable in the Gujranwala Police Department but was denied appointment after it was revealed that an FIR had been registered against him under Sections 427/182 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 29-D of the Telegraph Act, 1885. The petitioner was convicted but placed on probation under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his appointment on the grounds that his probation should not disqualify him from public service. After initial litigation, the Police Department re-examined the case but upheld the rejection, citing Standing Order No.06/2015, which disallows candidates with a criminal record from being appointed. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Standing Order, which bars candidates with a criminal record from appointment to the police force, applies to the petitioner, who was placed on probation. ----2- Whether the judicial observation of the Magistrate, stating that the petitioner’s conviction would not disqualify him from future government employment, can override the departmental policy of the Police Department. ----3- Whether Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960, protects the petitioner from disqualification for public employment based on his conviction and probation. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the Police Department was within its rights to deny the petitioner’s appointment based on its Standing Order, which aims to maintain the discipline and integrity of the police force by excluding candidates with criminal records, even those placed on probation. The court emphasized that the observation of the Magistrate regarding the petitioner’s eligibility for future government jobs cannot override the departmental policy of the Police Department. The court noted that police force members are held to a higher standard of conduct than other public servants due to their role in maintaining law and order. Regarding Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960, the court acknowledged that the provision allows for rehabilitation and removal of the disqualification attached to a conviction. However, the court held that this provision does not invalidate a departmental policy aimed at maintaining the discipline of a specialized force like the police. The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Inspector General of Police, Punjab v. Mahmood Ikram (1998 SCMR 765), which allowed departmental proceedings against a probationer for misconduct. The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the Police Department's Standing Order was lawful, and the petitioner’s criminal record, despite his probation, was a valid reason for rejecting his appointment. -----Citations/Precedents: Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore and others v. Mahmood Ikram (1998 SCMR 765) Syed Ali Hassan Naqvi v. Senior Superintendent of Police (2023 LHC 4701) Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 (Section 11) ----Quote: ''Recruitment in Police Department - Candidates having criminal antecedents. Scope of Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 where offender admits his guilt and released on parole by Magistrate with observation that his conviction shall not affect his appointment to Govt. service. Held: Standing Order No.06/2015 issued by Police Department contemplates that candidates having criminal antecedents are not to be appointed. In instant case the petitioner confessed his guilt and learned Magistrate sent him to parole with the observation that such parole shall not effect the appointment to Govt. service. Observation of learned Judicial Magistrate sending an accused on parole under Ordinance after his confession cannot nullify the department policy envisaged under the Standing Order inasmuch as such an observation was made without discussing the Standing Order No.06/2015. Moreover, such an observation may hold some persuasion in any other department but not in police force. Standard expected of a person intending to join a uniformed service like the Police Department is quite distinct, from other services, which is required to be more disciplined institution and inclusion of person having criminal antecedents could have bearing on the discipline of the force that is tasked to maintain law and order in the society. Case reported as "Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore and others v. Mahmood Ikram" (1998 SCMR 765) is distinguished.'

Summary: Discussion: (1) Doctrine of ex debito justitiae. (2) Right of representation is provided under Section 21 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 against discharge from service under Rule 12.21 of Police Rules, 1934. (3) Any adverse decision on representation can be challenged under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. ---- he petitioner had been charged with remaining absent from official duty without prior permission while posted at Sadar Division, Dolphin Squad, Lahore.The petitioner argued that the Tribunal wrongly dismissed his appeal as time-barred, contending that the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934, which stated that no appeal lies against an order of discharge, should not override the provisions of Section 21 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.The court, in its judgment dated 5th October 2023, delves into the legal intricacies of the case. It scrutinizes the contention that a departmental appeal was not maintainable under Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934, against the order of discharge. The court emphasizes the importance of Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which provides a right of appeal or representation if no specific provision for appeal or review exists in the rules.The judgment notes that while Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934, does not provide a right of appeal against discharge, it does not preclude the filing of a representation, as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.The court criticizes the Tribunal's focus on the nomenclature of the appeal rather than delving into the substance of the petitioner's grievance. It underscores the principles of natural justice, fairness, and the right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with the law.Consequently, the court converts the civil petition into an appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority, treating the petitioner's appeal as a representation under Section 21 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The appellate authority is directed to decide the matter strictly in accordance with the law after providing due notice to the parties.