IN THE COURT OF, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF
PEACE, XYZ.
David (Petitioner) Versus Anti Corruption Department and others
Petition u/s 22-A/22-B of Cr.P.C.
00.00.0000
Present (Name of the Advocate) for petitioner.
Through
the instant petition under section 22-A/22-B Cr.P.C. the petitioner maintained that he had disowned his son Amanul for the last many years due to his misconduct. That an officer of Police Station (XYZ) namely
Qaisar arrested his son in a case and also called the petitioner
through telephone. That Qaisar demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the petitioner and threatened that otherwise he would implicate the petitioner
too in the said case. It is further
alleged in the petition that said Police Officer received Rs. 40,000/- as bribe from the petitioner coercively.
2. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that One respondent No.1 vide his report dated 00.00.0000
recommended action against Police Officer but report of Anti Corruption Establishment
(ACE) filed during instant petition
shows that ACE has dropped the inquiry. That in the light of law laid down in 2004 YLR
56 ( Lahore) and 2005 MLD 1647 ( Lahore) the preliminary
inquiry is not necessary for
registration of case.
3. I
have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned
counsel for the petitioner had filed attested copy of final report of
respondent No.1 in inquiry No. E-000/0000
in which action was recommended
against Police Officer. On the
other hand, the report of respondent No.2 was received which shows that
compliant inquiry No. E-000/0000 against said police officer was entrusted to DDI, ACE and vide his final report he
recommended to drop the inquiry and
competent authority dropped the inquiry.
In view of these contradictory reports, I required the respondent to furnish attested
copy of final reports of the competent authority, these attested copies have
been received. The
final report of respondent No.1 shows that Police Officer admitted that he
received Rs. 40,000/- from the petitioner but maintained that he gave said amount to complainant of the case FIR
No. 000/0000 dated 00.00.0000 U/s 392/411 PPC Police Station ABC (XYZ) and
demanded time for production of recovery memo of said amount but as said SI failed
in production of recovery memo, respondent No.1 gave final opinion that Police
Officer is guilty of receiving amount as bribe
and recommended to register a
case against him. On the other hand, DDI vide his final
report gave final opinion that Police
Officer obtained Rs. 30,000/- from the petitioner and gave the same to
complainant of aforesaid case FIR as compensation and that the inquiry is false and baseless,
he recommended to drop the inquiry. Police record of aforesaid case is also summoned by me which is placed before me which shows that only three
recovery memos were prepared in the said
case. These recovery memos are regarding two gold rings, two ear rings and two
gold bracelets respectively. There is no recovery memo
of any cash amount. In the light
of what has been discussed above, I am convinced that the report respondent No.1 carries weight. The petition
is granted. The respondent is
directed to record statement of
petitioner and to register a case
against said Police Officer under the
relevant provisions of law. Record of
the case FIR be returned to the concerned police station. Copy of this
order be sent to the respondents. File be consigned to the record room after
its due completion.
Announced
00.00.0000
Additional
Sessions Judge/
Ex-Officio
Justice of Peace
XYZ
No comments:
Post a Comment