Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Arts. 4 & 14; Art. 10A (presumption of innocence); Police Rules, 1934, r. 24.5; Police Order, 2002, Art. 10(3); Punjab Right to Public Services Act, 2019, s. 10 - Police Record Certificates (PRCs) and acquittals—Disclosure of non-conviction data—Right to be dealt with in accordance with law and dignity—Held, inclusion in a PRC of any case that has culminated in acquittal, discharge, or cancellation (Category-1 matters) is unconstitutional and unlawful as it offends Arts. 4 and 14 and undermines the presumption of innocence protected by Art. 10A—Such disclosure carries stigma which a “no adverse effect” notation cannot cure—Absent an express statutory framework authorizing calibrated disclosure with safeguards, police cannot publish non-conviction history in PRCs—Directions issued to omit the petitioner’s acquitted case from PRC and to re-issue within ten days; however, preservation of internal records under r. 24.5 remains unaffected. (b) Police administration—Disclosure vs. preservation—Standing Orders/SOPs cannot substitute legislation ----Police Rules, 1934, r. 24.5; Police Order, 2002, Art. 10(3); Punjab Right to Public Services Act, 2019, ss. 4(1), 10 ---- Rule 24.5 mandates preservation of FIR registers and related entries for sixty years; it does not authorize disclosure to third parties through PRCs—IGP’s Standing Order No. 2 of 2024 and related SOPs may regulate internal processes but do not create substantive power to disclose criminal-record information—PRPSA is procedural and applies only to Gazette-notified services; issuance of PRCs (and disclosure of non-conviction data therein) is not shown to be duly notified—Reliance on Art. 10(3) of the Police Order and s. 10 PRPSA to justify PRC disclosures is misplaced. (c) Criminal justice—Effect of acquittal; presumption restored in full ----Art. 10A; Cr.P.C., ss. 249-A, 345(6); Evidence—Standards ---- An acquittal by a competent court confers a “double presumption of innocence” and restores legal and social standing; Pakistani jurisprudence recognizes that all acquittals are honourable, whether on merits or by benefit of doubt; no shades of acquittal—Any State action that re-stigmatizes by publicizing the concluded accusation must meet strict legality, necessity, and proportionality; without statute, Category-1 matters must be excluded from PRCs. Cited: Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Raza (2008 SCMR 329); Chairman ADBP v. Mumtaz Khan (PLD 2010 SC 695); The State v. Abdul Khaliq (PLD 2011 SC 554); Muhammad Bashir v. SHO (PLD 2007 SC 539). (d) Pending cases and convictions—Future legislative path ----Structured disclosure only by statute ---- Pending proceedings (Category-2) may justify calibrated disclosure for narrowly defined, role-specific contexts (e.g., sensitive employment), but only under specific legislation articulating offence classes, relevance, necessity, and proportionality tests—Conviction history (Category-3) likewise requires statutory calibration; blanket, context-free disclosure is inconsistent with contemporary standards of privacy and dignity—Comparative regimes (UK/Australia/US) are statutory and filtered; Pakistan lacks equivalent legislation. (e) Judicial directions in Zulfiqar Ali (PLD 2023 Lahore 512)—Limited scope ---- Directions there concern accuracy and status-updating of records filed in judicial proceedings; they neither address nor authorize disclosure of non-conviction data in PRCs—Reliance on Zulfiqar Ali to justify PRC disclosures is misconceived. (f) Consent and “citizen-driven” issuance—No waiver of fundamental rights---- A PRC sought to satisfy administrative requirements (e.g., visas) is not a voluntary waiver of Arts. 4 or 14—Consent under administrative compulsion cannot validate an otherwise unauthorized disclosure. (g) Comparative law—Inapplicability absent statute ---- UK case law on Enhanced Certificates (e.g., AR v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2018] UKSC 47) operates within a detailed statutory framework (Police Act 1997; statutory guidance; filtering)—Pakistan has no comparable legislative scheme; importing outcomes without statutory footing is impermissible. (h) Maintainability—Ripeness---- Objection of prematurity overruled—The impugned PRC had already been issued for use in a visa process; risk of denial/delay and reputational harm is concrete and immediate; petition is ripe for adjudication. Cited: Mughal-e-Azam Banquet Complex v. Federation (2011 PTD 2260); Sabira Khatoon (2021 PLC (C.S.) 1600); Muhammad Hammad-ur-Rehman Zafar (PLD 2022 Lahore 177). (i) Misstatement in PRC—Correction mandated; dignity engaged---- PRC wrongly recorded acquittal as under s. 494 Cr.P.C. (withdrawal) whereas judicial record shows s. 249-A Cr.P.C. (reasoned acquittal)—This mischaracterization is substantive, not semantic; it diminishes the judicial nature of exoneration and offends dignity—Correction directed. (j) Record deletion vs. non-disclosure ---- Prayer to delete petitioner’s name from PSRMS/CRMS declined—Police are bound to preserve FIR indexes and case outcomes for sixty years under r. 24.5—Constitutional protection is achieved by prohibiting public disclosure of Category-1 matters in PRCs, not by erasing lawful internal records—This does not preclude disclosure when specifically required by statute or court order. (k) Service/disciplinary proceedings—Autonomy preserved---- Exclusion of acquitted matters from PRCs does not bar permissible departmental action under service law/Police Rules (e.g., r. 16.3) where independently warranted; standards and objectives differ from criminal adjudication. Cited: Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. IGP Punjab (2023 PLC (C.S.) 884). (g) Disposition — Petition allowed to this extent: Respondents shall, within ten days of receipt of certified copy, issue a revised PRC to the petitioner omitting any reference to FIR No. 570/2016 and correctly reflecting her status; preservation and annotation of internal police records under r. 24.5 remain intact; nothing herein precludes disclosure where specifically mandated by statute or court order; no order as to costs. Cited cases (select): • Waqas Khan v. The State (PLD 2025 Peshawar 67) • Zulfiqar Ali v. Ex officio Justice of Peace (PLD 2023 Lahore 512) • Jawwad S. Khawaja v. Federation (PLD 2024 SC 337) • Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Raza (2008 SCMR 329) • Chairman ADBP v. Mumtaz Khan (PLD 2010 SC 695) • Muhammad Bashir v. SHO (PLD 2007 SC 539) • Mughal-e-Azam Banquet Complex (2011 PTD 2260) • Muhammad Hammad-ur-Rehman Zafar (PLD 2022 Lahore 177) • AR v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2018] UKSC 47

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 200, 435 & 439---Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), Ss. 3 & 4---Complaint dismissed by Trial Court without recording complainant’s statement in open Court---Mandatory compliance with S.200, Cr.P.C.---Non-compliance rendering order void ab initio---Held, that S.200, Cr.P.C. makes it obligatory upon the Magistrate to record the statement of complainant and witnesses, if any, on oath in open Court before proceeding further---In the present case, a typed statement was placed on record bearing only the complainant’s signature, without the signature or seal of the learned Judge---Trial Court failed to perform the mandatory act of recording statement in open Court; such omission vitiated the entire proceedings---Impugned order, therefore, was legally unsustainable and warranted interference in revision. (b) Police Order (XXII of 2002)--- ----Police Rules---Inquiry report—Vagueness and non-compliance with law---Held, that the Trial Court directed SHO P.S. Khanna to hold inquiry regarding possession and ownership, but the report submitted was vague, perfunctory, and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Police Order, 2002, and Police Rules---Investigating Officer was bound to associate both parties and record their statements as in an FIR under S.154, Cr.P.C.---Failure to conduct such lawful inquiry rendered the report defective and the Trial Court erred in relying upon it without scrutiny. (c) Administration of justice--- ----Procedural irregularity—Effect---Failure to follow mandatory procedure under S.200, Cr.P.C. and reliance on defective police report constituted serious procedural irregularities rendering impugned order null and void---Matter remanded for fresh proceedings. Disposition: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; case remanded to the Trial Court with directions to record statements of complainant and witnesses on oath under S.200, Cr.P.C., obtain fresh detailed police report, and proceed strictly in accordance with the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and Cr.P.C.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 — Arts. 4, 10-A, 19, 19A & 199 — Fair trial — Right to information — Abuse of police authority — Failure to include crucial evidence — Role of High Court in enforcing fundamental rights — Jurisdictional scope. Where an accused was allegedly abducted by police officials and later framed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the High Court held that the accused’s fundamental rights under Articles 4, 10-A and 19A of the Constitution were implicated. The petitioner, being the accused’s spouse, sought access to PSCA CCTV footage and call data to prove the alleged abduction and extortion. The Court affirmed that Article 19A guarantees citizens a proactive right to access information of public importance, and non-supply of such crucial evidence by investigating officers, particularly where law enforcement is involved, may justify constitutional intervention under Article 199. Where an investigation is alleged to be tainted by mala fides or deliberate omissions, the High Court may issue a writ of mandamus. Held, High Court has constitutional jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights where police conduct is mala fide or without jurisdiction. Cited Cases: • Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473 • Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 292 • Justice Qazi Faez Isa v. President of Pakistan PLD 2023 SC 661 • Province of Punjab v. Qaisar Iqbal PLD 2018 Lahore 198 • Younas Abbas v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal PLD 2016 SC 581 • Shahnaz Begum v. Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh & Balochistan PLD 1971 SC 677 • Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq 2006 SCMR 276 • Muhammad Latif v. Sharifan Bibi 1998 SCMR 666 (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 — S. 9(c) — Allegation of false implication in narcotics case — Inaction and collusion by investigating authority — Judicial oversight. The accused was booked under Section 9(c) of the CNSA following his alleged abduction and demand for ransom by police officials. Despite repeated complaints and call recordings, investigating officers failed to incorporate exculpatory evidence including CCTV footage and call data. The Court observed that deliberate omission of such material, especially where police personnel themselves are implicated, offends the right to fair investigation and may justify High Court intervention to ensure preservation of justice and rule of law. Held, investigation must be honest and impartial — Where such obligation is breached, superior courts may intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice. Cited Cases: • Afzal Ahmad v. City Police Officer PLD 2022 Lahore 721 • Altaf Ahmad Makhdoom v. IG Police Punjab 2023 PCr.LJ 1 • Mst. Sughran Bibi v. State PLD 2018 SC 595 • Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254 • Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 (c) Police Order, 2002 — Arts. 18(9), 18-A, 106 — Cr.P.C., 1898 — Ss. 22-A(6), 94(1), 155(2), 156(3), 551 — Role of supervisory and constitutional authorities — Redressal for defective investigation. Petitioner’s failure to invoke appropriate remedies under Police Order 2002 or Cr.P.C. provisions notwithstanding, the High Court ruled that where remedies prove illusory due to police complicity or non-responsiveness, constitutional writ jurisdiction may be invoked. The Court emphasized the vital role of Ex-officio Justice of Peace under S. 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. in directing supervisory police officers, and highlighted other statutory powers under S. 94(1) and 156(3) to summon relevant evidence or ensure proper investigation. Held, statutory and constitutional tools exist for securing fair investigation — However, failure of authorities to act or police’s complicity may activate constitutional jurisdiction. Cited Cases: • Khizer Hayat v. IG Police Punjab PLD 2005 Lahore 470 • Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan AIR 2006 SC 705 • Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. AIR 2008 SC 907 • M. Subramaniam v. Janki AIROnline 2020 SC 387 • The State v. Ch. Muhammad Usman 2023 SCMR 1676 • Shakeel Akhtar v. State 2023 LHC 7704 • Zaheer Ahmed v. Judge Special Court PLD 2023 Lahore 528 • Muhammad Asif Ali Usama v. State 2022 PCr.LJ 59 (d) Right to Information — Article 19A of Constitution — PSCA Act, 2016 vs. Punjab Transparency & RTI Act, 2013 — Special law vs. general law — Disclosure of CCTV footage & call records. The Court held that the PSCA Act, 2016, along with Electronic Data Regulations (EDR-16), constitutes a special law which overrides the general provisions of the Punjab RTI Act, 2013. Requests for PSCA data must be routed through the prescribed EDR Form and only by authorized personnel such as IOs or courts. The petitioner’s direct applications to PSCA were thus rightly rejected. Held, specific framework under special law prevails over general right to information — Individual access to PSCA data not permissible unless routed through authorized channel. Cited Cases: • Pakistan Fisheries Ltd. v. United Bank Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 109 • Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank (2000) 4 SCC 406 • Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 71 (e) Ex-officio Justice of Peace — Scope of powers under S.22-A(6) Cr.P.C. — Misconception regarding interference with investigation. The Ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissed the petitioner’s application under S. 22-A Cr.P.C. citing bar on interference with investigation. The Court held this interpretation incorrect and contrary to Full Bench precedent, clarifying that Ex-officio Justice of Peace can direct police authorities where there is failure, neglect or illegality, particularly to ensure fair investigation and evidence preservation. Held, S. 22-A Cr.P.C. empowers Ex-officio Justice of Peace to issue appropriate directions to redress grievances against police conduct. (f) Investigating Officer’s duty — Fair, complete, and unbiased investigation — Obligation to collect all relevant evidence — Courts' supervisory role. An IO is duty-bound to discover the truth without bias. Courts have supervisory powers to ensure that all probative material is placed on record. Failure to include crucial evidence, especially when brought to the IO’s notice, may vitiate the investigation and justify judicial intervention. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sughran Bibi v. State PLD 2018 SC 595 • Mian Khalid Pervaiz v. State 2021 SCMR 522 • Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan 2016 SCMR 274 • Shakeel Akhtar v. State 2023 LHC 7704 (g) Administrative directions — Inoperability of Safe Cities surveillance — Non-coordination between public bodies — Judicial directive. During proceedings, it was revealed that several PSCA surveillance cameras were non-functional due to infrastructure damage caused by other government departments. The Court issued directions to the Chief Secretary of Punjab to ensure strict compliance with coordination SOPs for preservation of PSCA infrastructure. Disposition Petition disposed of. Applications to PSCA rightly refused under law. Ex-officio Justice of Peace erred in denying directions. No further relief warranted as CCTV data had been overwritten and CDR already procured. Directions issued to government authorities for systemic rectification.

Summary: High Court shall not exercise its writ jurisdiction in the cases where the petitioner has access to an equally efficacious and adequate alternative remedy under the law --- (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 199---- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ----Ss. 22, 22-A, 22-B & 25---- Police Order, 2002 ----S. 155 & related provisions---- Writ jurisdiction---Allegation of police harassment---Availability of alternate remedy---Scope---Petitioner, claiming to be sui juris, contracted marriage against wishes of family and alleged that private respondents, in collusion with police officials, were harassing her and her husband---Prayer sought for writ of mandamus to restrain harassment---Held, powers under Art. 199 are discretionary and not to be exercised where equally efficacious and adequate alternate remedies exist---In terms of Ss. 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace may issue directions to police regarding neglect, failure, excess, or harassment, including in extreme cases ordering registration of FIR against delinquent police officers---Police Order, 2002 also provides disciplinary and penal consequences for police misconduct---Petitioner could approach Ex-Officio Justice of Peace or relevant authority under Police Order, 2002---Doctrine of exhaustion of remedies requires statutory forums to be respected; High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction reserved for rare and exceptional circumstances, not to bypass prescribed legal mechanisms---Reliance placed on Khizer Hayat v. Inspector-General of Police (PLD 2005 Lahore 470), Muhammad Abbasi v. SHO Bhara Kahu (PLD 2010 SC 969), and Taufiq Asif v. General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf (PLD 2024 SC 610). Disposition: Petition dismissed in limine; petitioner relegated to alternate remedies before Ex-Officio Justice of Peace or authorities under Police Order, 2002.