Form No: HCJD/C.

JUDGEMENT SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Case No: Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

Muhammad Shahbaz Shabeer

Vs.
Additional Sessions Judge and others

Petitioner by: M/s. Barrister Suleman Safdar,

Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, Faisal
Fareed Chaudhary, Fahad Arslan
Chaudhary, Malik Naseem Abbas
Nasir, Malik Fiaz Ahmed Kandwal,
Mirza Asif Abbas, Ch. Khalid
Yousaf, Ali Ijaz Buttar, Intizar
Hussain Panjotha, Naeem Haider
Panjotha & Ch. Istiaq A. Khan,
Ashiq Hussain Tarar, Ch. Tanveer
Ahmed, Mubashar Najeeb, Dr.
Zubair Sarfraz, M. Saeed Khan
Sadozai, Mirza Aslam Baig, Sardar
Masroof Abid, Attiq ur Rehman
Siddiqi, Faisal Nawaz Jadoon,
Tanveer Hussain, Kalsoom Khaliq,
Ayesha Tabassum & Shaheena
Shahabud Din, Advocates.

Respondents by: M/s. Jahangir Khan Jadoon,

Advocate-General, Islamabad
Capital Territory, Raja Rizwan
Abbasi, Special Public Prosecutor,
Barrister Qasim Ali Chohan,
Additional Advocate-General
Punjab, Zohaib Hassan Gondal,
State Counsel, Khalid Mehmood
Awan, DSP, Sajid Abbas Cheema,
DSP, (Legal),
Kashif Ali, Additional
Superintendent, Syed Tahir
Saddique, Deputy Superintendent &
Noman ul Haq, Medical Officer,
Central Jail Adiyala, Rawalpindi.
Talat Mehmood, S.I./I.O.
 2
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

Date of Decision: 22.08.2022.

AAMER FAROOQ, J.- Muhammad Shahbaz Shabeer (the

petitioner) was arrested on 09.08.2022 in case FIR

No.691/2022 dated 09.08.2022 under Section 124-A, 120,

131, 153, 153-A, 505, 506, 121, 109 & 34 PPC Police Station,

Kohsar, Islamabad. He was brought before the concerned

Judicial Magistrate for obtaining his physical custody/remand

under Section 167 Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.)

on 10.08.2022. Learned Magistrate, pursuant to request of the

police allowed 48 hours remand to the police authorities i.e. to

retain the custody of the petitioner. On lapse of 48 hours the

petitioner was again presented before the learned Magistrate

on 12.08.2022 and a request for further remand in custody

was made which was turned down. Against the referred order

a criminal revision was preferred before respondent No.1

which was dismissed on the same day i.e. 12.08.2022. The

referred order of respondent No.1 as well as the order refusing

remand was challenged through a petition under Article 199

of Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the

Constitution) (W.P. No.2995/2022); the said writ petition was

allowed on 16.08.2022 and order dated 12.08.2022 of

respondent No.1 was set aside, resultantly the criminal

revision was held to be pending.

2. The matter was taken up by respondent No.1 on

17.08.2022 when the criminal revision, filed by the State was

 3
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

allowed and the petitioner was remanded in custody of police

for a further period of 48 hours. The order passed in the

criminal revision on 17.08.2022 (the impugned order) is

subject matter of the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended

that during the course of investigation the petitioner has been

subjected to torture. It was contended that the same could not

have been done as torture in the police custody is not

permissible under the law. It was further contended that when

on 12.08.2022 the petitioner was remanded in judicial custody

his medical examination was conducted which showed bruise

marks which is axiomatic that the petitioner was subjected to

torture. Learned counsel further contended that the order

impugned suffers from fundamental flaws inasmuch as never

ever when an accused has been remitted to judicial custody

she/he has been remanded again in police custody. It was

added that the impugned order is vague and non-speaking

hence is violative of Section 24-A of General Clauses Act,

1897. Learned counsel took the Court through various aspects

of the order to show that reliance has been made to the vague

arguments by the prosecution and even findings made are not

specific as to for what purpose physical remand of the

petitioner is required. It was further contended that the FIR

could not have been lodged and proceeded inasmuch as under

Sections 196 and 196-A Cr.P.C. sanction of Federal

 4
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

Government was required which means the Prime Minister

and the Cabinet which has not been done, hence the FIR is

liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions learned

counsel placed reliance on the case titled General (R) Pervez

Musharaf v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2020

Lahore 285), Jawan Saal v. DPO etc. (2011 YLR 2821), Ali

Raza and oanother v. Federation of Pakistan and another

(PLD 2017 Islamabad 64), Salman Taseer v. Judge, Special

Court (1993 SCMR 71), Ghulam Raza Soomro v. The Statei

(2000 SCMR 1645), Mumtaz Hussain v. Deputy Inspector

General etc. (PLD 2002 Lahore 78), Mian Touseef v.

District Police Officer etc. (2017 P Cr. L. J. 1140).

4. Raja Rizwan Abbasi, Special Public Prosecutor, inter

alia, contended that the petitioner was not subjected to any

torture during the course of investigation. It was contended

that no allegation regarding the torture was ever made and it is

only a result of afterthought. It was submitted that when the

petitioner was being admitted in the custody to jail

authorities it was the duty of the competent authority to refer

the matter to Sessions Judge, Islamabad for probing in the

matter which accordingly was not done. It was submitted that

the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Islamabad is well reasoned and does not suffers from any

illegality or jurisdictional error. In this behalf, it was

contended that a specific request for retaining the remand of

 5
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

the petitioner was made which was turned down initially by

the learned Magistrate without any cogent reason as he did not

made reference to any police diaries or other material to

refuse the remand rather the same was passed on general

estimation that the petitioner has remained in police custody

for a period of 72 hours which is a sufficient time to

investigate the matter. Learned counsel took the Court

through Section 167 Cr.P.C. to highlight the importance of the

police diaries and opinion of the Investigating Officer. It was

submitted that where the allegations against the petitioner are

well founded and the investigation has not been concluded

within the period of 24 hours and the Investigating Officer is

of the opinion that the physical custody of the accused is

required, the matter is to be sanctioned by the Magistrate

under Section 167 Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate can authorise

the physical custody of the petitioner for a cumulative time of

15 days. Learned counsel further contended that basically the

opinion of the Investigating Officer is of paramount

importance which as a safeguard the Magistrate has to

monitor and give reasons. It was further submitted that

another protective measure is the report to the Sessions Judge

when the physical custody of the accused is granted to the

police. It was further added that the period of 15 days has, as

such, not expired inasmuch as the time which the petitioner

has spent in hospital could not be counted. It was submitted

 6
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

that under Sections 196 and 196-A Cr.P.C. it is for the Court

to take cognizance of the offence and failure to do so has

consequence only when report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is

presented. It was further added that the cognizance means

calling the accused before the Court and not otherwise. It was

contended that even otherwise, the Federal Government i.e.

the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on 11.12.2020 authorized

the Secretary M/o Interior to file a complaint with respect to

complaints under Sections 108-A or Section 153-A, Or

Section 294-A, or Section 295-A or Section 505 of Pakistan

Penal Code, 1860 (PPC). It was contended that in the instant

case the Chief Commissioner Office, which is the Provincial

Government for the purpose of Islamabad Capital Territory

did authorize the initiation of process.

5. Barrister Qasim Ali Chohan, Additional Advocate-

General Punjab submitted that explanations have been filed

and the record of the jail authorities does show some bruises

and marks. It was contended that the delay in handing over the

custody of the petitioner to the Islamabad Capital Territory

Police was only because of ailment of the petitioner and no

other extraneous reason.

6. Mr. Jahangir Khan Jadoon, Advocate-General,

Islamabad Capital Territory submitted that the report by the

Inspector-General of Police, Islamabad Capital Territory is

being submitted as a preliminary report pursuant to order of

 7
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

this Court and in the same, as such, no concrete evidence is

available with respect to torture practiced to extract evidence.

7. The Investigating Officer, in the Court, was specifically

inquired as to the purpose for which physical remand of the

petitioner is required and he responded that the petitioner

during investigation disclosed that phone number from which

he made a statement or gave interview to ARY Channel was a

landline number connected to residence in Banigala,

Islamabad; however, he submitted that he also stated that the

statement he made is contained in a cellular phone, which

needs to be recovered to establish that the petitioner had

support and alliance in commission of the alleged offence. It

was further submitted that the petitioner also is to be subjected

to polygraphic test which can only be done in Lahore; he

needs to be taken for the said purpose. It was generally

inquired from all the learned counsel, present in the Court,

whether the investigation can be conducted in the jail, if any

accused is in judicial custody and unanimously the answer

was in affirmative; however, learned Special Public

Prosecutor contended that since the recovery is to be effected

from the petitioner, hence no rule or law exists that the same

can be done in jail. Likewise, it was submitted that since the

facility of polygraphic test is only available perhaps with the

Federal Investigation Agency Cyber Crime, Islamabad he has

to be taken there for the said purpose.

 8
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

8. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

parties have been heard and the documents placed on record

examined with their able assistance.

9. The factual aspect of the controversy is mentioned

hereinabove, hence need not be repeated. The arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the parties reflect that there

are three aspects of the controversy raised in the instant

petition which are as follows:

i. Subjection of torture on the petitioner while in

police custody and its effect on further remand.
ii. The legality of the impugned order dated
17.08.2022.
iii. Non-compliance of Sections 196 and 196-A
Cr.P.C. and its effect on the issue of remand.

10. Since the basic question pertains to the legality or

otherwise of the impugned order, hence the same shall be

taken up first.

11. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad,

respondent No.1 while allowing the criminal revision and

granting the physical custody of the petitioner with the police

for further 48 hours has relied heavily on the police diaries. It

is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is vague

as no specific reason for granting the physical custody of the

petitioner has been mentioned. It has been written in the

impugned order that the offences in question are serious and

the case diaries reflects that the investigation is still under way
 9
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

and the recovery is still to be effected and certain facts are to

be probed. It has also been observed that the police diaries

reflect that the attitude of the police is not lethargic. Keeping

in view the referred observations and comparing the same

with the observations made by the learned Magistrate in order

dated 12.08.2022 where the physical remand was refused for

the reasons that the cellular phone is in custody of the driver

and there is nothing on record that it is the same phone from

which the matter was read out by the accused and that the

police custody was for 72 hours which is a sufficient time.

The referred findings of learned Magistrate were set aside by

respondent No.1 in the proceedings under Section 435 Cr.P.C.

The referred provision of law grants the Sessions Court as

well as High Court to call for and examine the record and the

propriety of any proceedings, order or sentence regarding its

correctness, legality or propriety (Section 435 Cr.P.C.). On

the touchstone of the above provision the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Islamabad was of the view that since no

reference to the police diaries has been made or record

examined, hence the order is untenable.

12. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199

of Constitution has to see whether there is any jurisdictional

defect or error of law in the order impugned before it. The

matter was argued by both the sides on factual aspect of the

controversy rather on the scope of judicial review which is

 10
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

much narrow in a petition under Article 199 of the

Constitution. This Court cannot hear and adjudicate a petition

under Article 199 of the Constitution like an appeal and

replace its findings with that of the Court of first instance or

the Court hearing the revision petition as all it has to do is that

whether there is any error of law or of jurisdiction. It is trite

law that no interference in the investigation can be made by

any Court except in certain circumstances. The referred

circumstances were spelt out by the august Apex Court in

Ghulam Sarwar Zardari v. Piyar Ali alias Piyaro and

another (2010 SCMR 624) and it was observed as follows:

“Investigation can be corrected and necessary orders

can be passed, if aggrieved party alleges and proves
one or other of the following conditions:---

(1) Investigation initiated beyond jurisdiction of

investigating agencies;

(2) Investigation initiated with mala fide intention;

(i) in bad faith out of personal motives either to

hurt the person against whom action is taken or
to benefit oneself;

(ii) in colourable exercise of powers;

(iii) not authorized by law under which action is

taken;

(iv) action taken in fraud of law; and

(v) abuse of process of law.

Where application against investigation does not show

any of the above mentioned facts alleged and proved,
then High Court under constitutional jurisdiction has no
 11
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

jurisdiction to interfere with investigation or pass any

order.”

13. Similar observations were made in Hayatullah Khan

and another v. Muhammad Khan and others (2011 SCMR

1354) and Muhammad Hanif v. The State (2019 SCMR

2029).

14. Examination of the order and submissions of the

learned counsel for the parties does not divulge any error of

law or jurisdiction. Respondent No.1 did have the jurisdiction

to hear the revision petition against order under Section 167

Cr.P.C. Insofar as the question of mistake or inaccuracy of

law is concerned it is settled proposition of law that the

remand should not be allowed in a mechanical way or refused

on the basis of conjectures or surmises without application of

mind rather ought to be done on the basis of material available

on record including the police diaries and the examination of

police diaries led the revisional Court to the conclusion that

further 48 hours of the remand in police custody is required.

The Investigating Officer also made the reference to the

reasons for which the physical custody is required and i.e. to

recover the cellular phone from where the statement was

allegedly read out. Hence the order impugned does not suffer

from any error of law inasmuch as the yardstick provided

under High Court Rules and Orders and the parameters laid

down in Ghulam Sarwar and another v. The State (1984 P.

 12
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

Cr. L. J. 2588) were taken into account in coming to the

conclusion that the further physical custody is required.

15. Now this Court adverts to a very serious issue regarding

the petitioner being subjected to torture while in custody of

the police during investigation. The police authorities

vehemently denied allegation of torture even on the last date

of hearing i.e. 18.08.2022 when the matter was referred to the

Inspector-General of Police, Islamabad Capital Territory for

preliminary inquiry. The register/record of the Central Jail

Adiyala, Rawalpindi does mention certain bruises and other

marks on the body of the petitioner when he was taken in.

Under Rule 20 of the Prison Code Rules for the

Superintendence and management of Prisons in Pakistan

when a prisoner with injuries on his body is admitted into a

prison from police custody he shall be examined immediately

by the Medical Officer. It is also provided that if the

examination reveals unexplained injuries not already recorded

in the medico legal report accompanying the prisoner, a report

shall at once be made to the Sessions Judge and officer

Incharge of the prosecution and Superintendent police. As

noted above the Medical Officer does mention certain marks

on the body of the petitioner; however, it seems that no further

action was taken on the same inasmuch as no communication

was made to the Sessions Judge or even to the Superintendent

of Police or office of Advocate-General, Islamabad. It is also

 13
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

a fact that on 13.08.2022 & 15.08.2022 the medical

examination of the petitioner was sought to be conducted

from the Board of the Professors of Pakistan Institute of

Medical Sciences, Islamabad (PIMS) and the Board was

constituted by the Additional District Magistrate, Islamabad

Capital Territory but as per the prosecution the petitioner

declined to have himself examined. The examination of body

of the petitioner was also made on 17.08.2022 which does

mention some infirmity of the health of the petitioner but in

conclusion it was clearly mentioned that he needs monitoring

and assessment but nothing was stated about physical torture

or his condition being in such state due to the same. The

torture in any form to extract evidence is prohibited. The basic

prohibition exists in Article 14 (2) of the Constitution which

provides that no prisoner shall be subjected to torture for the

purpose of extracting evidence. Much judicial ink has been

expended safeguarding the rights of the prisoners and accused

persons and to protect them from torture. This Court in the

celebrated judgment titled Khadim Hussain v. Secretary M/o

Human Rights Islamabad etc. (PLD 2020 Islamabad 268)

elaborately laid down the law on the issue of dignity of a main

and fundamental rights of a prisoner who is in incarceration

after making reference to the international treaties as well as

provisions provided in the Constitution. It was concluded that

a prisoner either facing trial or serving sentence has all the

 14
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

rights which an individual has otherwise and it is the duty of

the prison functionaries that if a prisoner suffers from serious

disease, he was not only provided with the highest attainable

standard of health services but is to be treated in accordance

with law. In Ayyaz Ahmed v. Saqib Nazir Superintendent

Cental Jail (PLD 2017 Lahore 342) the Hon’ble Lahore

High Court held that to provide medical care to the prisoners

is the duty of the jail authorities. In Asif Kamal v. the Judge

Accountability Court Multan and others (2020 P. Cr. L. J.

1) the Division Bench of Lahore High Court again considered

the rights of the prisoners and elaborated the same. Keeping in

view the above judgments and the allegation levelled on

behalf of the petitioner that he was subjected to torture, the

matter cannot just simply be ignored as it can entail serious

consequences for future investigations. Though no specific

prayer has been made for doing anything about the torture

with which the petitioner has been allegedly subjected to, the

Court is making observations and delving in the issue as

arguments were addressed on it and the matter caught media

attention which led to concerns being raised to the unlawful

practices, allegedly, adopted by police during investigation. In

Muhammad Hussain v. The Illaqa Magistrate Ist Class

Lahore and 4 others (1995 P Cr. L. J. 97) it was held that

where an allegation has been made regarding any excess made

by the police the matter may be probed by the Magistrate.

 15
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

Likewise, in Nadeem v. Sanaullah Sangi etc. (2004 P Cr. L.

J. 1775) it was observed by the Division Bench of Sindh

High Court that where allegation of maltreatment was made

by the detenue and the marks of violence were visible; the

detenue who has been arrested in a substantive offence and a

remand has been obtained from the competent Court, the

detenue could seek remedy from the said Court. In view of the

said position the petitioner may adopt recourse for further

probe in the matter; however, it would be only appropriate

that Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan should look

into the matter and appoint an Inquiry Officer preferably a

retired Judge of the High Court to examine the issue and make

a detailed findings on the same and also suggest ways to curb

the practice.

16. It is also the stance of the petitioner that the FIR cannot

proceed as the permission under Sections 196 and 196-A

Cr.P.C. was not obtained. In this behalf learned counsel for

the petitioner made reference to the provisions and submitted

that under the same no Court can take cognizance of the

offence punishable under Chapter-VI of the PPC or

punishable under Section 108-A, or Section 153-A or Section

294-A, or Section 295-A or Section 505 of the Code unless

the sanction has been obtained on order or under authority

from the Federal Government or Provincial Government

concerned, or some officer empowered in this behalf by

 16
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

either of the two Governments. Likewise, under Section 196-

A Cr.P.C. no Court is to take cognizance of the offence of

criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the

PPC as mentioned in subsections 1 & 2 respectively. In

support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner

placed reliance on various judgments especially the judgment

of this Court in case titled Ali Raza and oanother v.

Federation of Pakistan and another (PLD 2017 Islamabad

64), Salman Taseer v. Judge, Special Court (1993 SCMR

71) wherein the FIR was quashed where no sanction was

made. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled

Muhammad Nazir v. Fazal Karim and others (PLD 2012

Supreme Court 892) while interpreting Section 195 (1)(c)

Cr. P.C. which provides the similar effect that no cognizance

by any Court is to be taken unless a complaint is taken in

writing by such Court or some other Court with respect to any

document, held as follows:

“We may observe with respect that the learned

Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court,
Lahore seems to have confused the expression
"cognizance" appearing in section 195, Cr.P.C.
with the expressions "cognizable" and "non-
cognizable" finding mention in sections 154 to
157, Cr.P.C. and had also failed to appreciate that
taking of cognizance of an offence by a court is a
thing quite distinct from investigation of a reported
offence by the police or any other investigation
agency. The learned Judge-in-Chamber ought to
 17
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

have appreciated that the provisions of section

195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. deal only with taking of
cognizance of an offence by a court and the same
do not place any embargo upon reporting such an
alleged forgery to the police, registration of an
F.I.R. in that regard or conducting of an
investigation in respect of such an allegation.
There may be situations where a court before
whom an allegation has been levelled regarding
production or giving in evidence of a forged or
tampered document may in the first instance like to
get the matter of alleged forgery inquired into or
investigated by a trained investigating agency or it
may require the party levelling the allegation to
report the matter to the investigating agency for an
inquiry or investigation before making up its mind
whether to lodge any complaint in writing under
section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. before the trial court or
not. In the case of Industrial Development Bank of
Pakistan and others v. Mian Asim Fareed and
others (2006 SCMR 483) it had expressly been
held by this Court as follows:

"Needless to add that the registration of an F.I.R.

and taking of cognizance of cases were two distinct
and independent concepts under the criminal law;
that if the intention of the law-maker was to put
any clog on the registration of an F.I.R. then the
Legislature would have said so specifically and
that if the law put a condition only on the taking of
cognizance then it can never be read to imply
prohibition on registration of F.I.Rs."

The said exposition of law was subsequently

 18
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

followed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in the

case of Muhammad Bashir alias Bakola and 8
others v. Superintendent of Police, City Division,
Lahore and 9 others (2007 PCr.LJ 864). It may not
be out of place to mention here that in the context
of the provisions of section 197, Cr.P.C., which
also contemplate a prohibition against taking of
cognizance of an offence by a court in the absence
of a sanction for prosecution, this Court had
observed in the case of Federation of Pakistan
through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and
Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad v. Zafar Awan,
Advocate, High Court (PLD 1992 SC 72) as
under:

"10. There are other cases referred to like R.C.

Pollard v. Satya Gopal Mazumdar (AIR 1943
Calcutta 594), Matiar Rahman Dewan v. The State
(PLD 1958 SC 21), Syed Ahmad v. The State (PLD
1958 SC 27) and Iqbal Hussain Siddiqui and 2
others v. The State (1970 SCMR 726) followed by
Syed Mushtaq Hussain Shah Bokhari v. The State
and another (PLD 1981 SC 573), all indicating
that proceedings can start in a Criminal Court
against the functionary unhampered till the stage
when it is found that there is nexus between the act
complained of and the official position enjoyed by
him in which case and at that stage the sanction of
the competent authority is to be sought for and
obtained before proceeding further."

An analogy from the last mentioned precedent case

could be drawn to conclude that if the provisions
of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. place a prohibition
 19
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

against taking of cognizance of an offence by a

court except in the given manner then all prior
steps taken before the stage of taking of
cognizance by a court could be deemed to be
permissible. It appears that this aspect vis- -vis the
provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. had
escaped attention of the learned Judge-in-
Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore while
recording his observations contained in
paragraphs numbers 2 and 3 of the impugned
order which observations reflect a misconception
of the real intent and import of the said provisions
and that is why the present clarification has been
considered by us to be necessary and called for.”

17. On the basis of the above judgment it can reliably be

concluded that the word cognizance means that when the

matter comes to the Court and Section 195 (1)(c) Cr.P.C. or

for that matter Sections 196 and 196-A Cr.P.C. do not hamper

investigation of a report conducted by the police or any other

investigation agency. The judgment of this Court cited as Ali

Raza and oanother v. Federation of Pakistan and another

(PLD 2017 Islamabad 64) it seems has not taken into

account the referred judgment of the august Apex Court,

hence is not a good precedent. There is no cavil with the

judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and

other case law General (R) Pervez Musharaf v. Federation of

Pakistan and others (PLD 2020 Lahore 285) as well as

Salman Taseer v. Judge, Special Court (1993 SCMR 71);

 20
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

the referred judgments are not binding in light of

Muhammad Nazir v. Fazal Karim and others (PLD 2012

Supreme Court 892). Moreover, the prosecution has also

placed on record copy of the notification bearing No. SRO

U1335(1)/2020 dated 14.12.2020 whereby the Federal

Government has granted authorization to Secretary M/o

Interior for filing complaints in respect of certain offences.

The stage to examine the legality or otherwise of the

proceedings shall be when the Court will take cognizance and

the objections raised regarding failure to take sanction might

be material at the said time, if there does not exist any such

approval or sanction.

18. Lastly, it was also argued that the petitioner has

completed the period of remand i.e. 15 days , hence no further

remand can be granted. In this behalf, reliance was placed on

Jawan Saal v. DPO etc. (2011 YLR 2821). I am afraid that

the referred contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is without force inasmuch as between 12.08.2022

till 17.08.2022 the petitioner remained in judicial custody and

even thereafter he was in the hospital (PIMS) on the

direction/orders of the learned Magistrate.

19. In view of the foregoing, no interference is required in

the order of the revisional Court; however, it is expected that

the Ministry of Interior shall do the needful in light of

observations made hereinabove and hold an impartial inquiry

 21
Writ Petition No.3035 of 2022

on the subject. It is only appropriate that during the physical

custody when the police authorities has remand of the

petitioner the same be directly supervised by a senior police

officer not below the rank of Senior Superintendent Police.

20. Disposed of accordingly. All pending applications are

disposed of as well.

(AAMER FAROOQ)
JUDGE

Approved for reporting

*M.Naveed*