NEED TO
CHECK INDISCRIMINATE AND LIBERAL ARRESTS BY POLICE
By:
ZEESHAN MANZOOR
Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate
Sujawal @ Thatta
The Prime Minister’s legal team has prepared a package[1] of legal reforms to overhaul the country’s criminal justice system: one of the chief objectives of the reforms being to improve highly exploitative existing First Information Report (FIR) scheme. The package attempts to amend the criminal law to ensure that an FIR is lodged in a criminal case after an inquiry or investigation has been completed.
A reference is made to the procedure adopted in Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) cases; in FIA cases, the Agency initiates an inquiry or investigation either on its own initiative of or on receipt of a complaint or oral or written information, such inquiry or investigation is then registered and proceeded with care and discretion without giving undue publicity to it, and, by taking special care to ensure that no unnecessary damage is caused to the prestige, reputation and dignity of anyone (any public servant) involved in the case[2]. It is not always that on receipt of a complaint, an inquiry is initiated or a case is registered[3]. Only after on completion of an investigation, if a case is found fit for prosecution and for which, sanction is obtained by adopting due procedure laid down under rules, the case is registered and consequential arrest is made.[4]
The reasoning behind the thought to improve the system is the realization of the present system of FIR being highly exploitative where innocent people are harassed and put behind the bars by way of lodging false FIRs.
With this whole in mind and keeping in view the stark reality that a lot has yet to be done before materializing the above idea, I want to focus on the need to check in current scenario indiscriminate and liberal arrests without warrant by police who have objective to protect rather than impede freedoms; after all, when such actions are not kept in check, the police are likely to become tyrannical. This is the avowed purpose of the paper in hand.
The role of the police is especially significant in this
respect. They are shouldered with the responsibility to curb criminality
tarnishing the peaceful co-existence of humanity. They are referred to as
social urgency of society by some[5],
and, as the gatekeepers to the criminal justice system, by others.[6]
It is axiomatic that the great asset of the police in investigation of crimes
and maintenance of law and order is the confidence of the people. Today, such
public confidence is at the lowest ebb in
It is a matter of great concern that hundreds of thousands of
people in
Police are clothed with vast powers to arrest a person in the cases of non-bailable offences, bailable offences, and even in matters where they may make preventive arrests. In absence of effective mechanism from within and without, the degree of vulnerability to misuse the powers by police is naturally quite high. Besides, tendency of liberal arrests by police is also marked by the pressures to get quick results they often have to bear. The situation calls for the Courts to intervene in the investigation process to prevent unwanted and unwarranted arrests and, to make sure that people are not harassed and their rights are not being violated.
Defining
“Arrest”
“Arrest” is the means through which a person is deprived of his liberty by legal authority. Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary defines ‘arrest’ as, “to apprehend by legal authority: to seize by warrant: to take in security.” Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) defines it as, “a seizure or forcible restraint; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, esp. in response to a criminal charge.”
Investigation
& Arrest
An impression amongst various quarters that arrest of an accused is a must for purpose of investigation is a misconceived one. Lodging of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) or registration of a criminal case does not straightaway require arrest of a person. The scheme of law does not oblige the police to arrest an accused though he may be nominated in F.I.R. or complaint till such time that sufficient evidence to connect the accused with crime becomes available with the Investigating Officer.
A comparative study of Sections 154 and 155, Cr.P.C brings home the understanding that under Section 154, Cr.P.C. a statutory duty has been cast upon the officer in charge of police station to enter information regarding commission of any cognizable offence in register, the form of which is prescribed by the Provincial Government. This information is known as First Information Report (F.I.R.). It brings law into motion.
But there can be no two views upon the contention of law that an F.I.R. is not a license to arrest. A suspect is not to be arrested straight away upon registration of F.I.R. or as a matter of course and that, unless the situation on the grounds so warrants, the arrest has to be deferred till such time that sufficient material or evidence is available with investigating agency which may prima facie satisfy the Investigating Officer regarding correctness of allegations leveled by the complainant; not only this, the police has to satisfy itself that there is no alternative available other than to arrest the suspect.
The scheme of law in terms of Section 154, Cr.P.C. (F.I.R.) is such that if information brought to the S.H.O. discloses commission of a cognizable offence, he has to record it in the relevant register. No authority is vested with the incharge police station to indulge himself into examining the veracity or falsity of such information by conducting an enquiry before actually exercising the mandate provide to him under Section 154, Cr.P.C.[7] Words “every information” relating to the commission of a cognizable offence used in Section 154, Cr.P.C. pertain only to the information supplied and do not speak of actual commission of offence. It is not the requirement of law that for an F.I.R. to be registered, such information shall ultimately prove true. The S.H.O. has to satisfy himself only to the extent that information is in respect of any offence which is cognizable. [8] The arrangement of law-has further provided mandate to the S.H.O. in terms of Section 182, P.P.C. and at later stage under Section 193, P.P.C. to the Court to take action against the person who is found to have furnished false information or given false evidence in the Court. Therefore, although the Police are competent to investigate every allegations of cognizable offence in terms of Section 156, Cr.P.C., a person named in it cannot be arrested unless, some tangible and reliable evidence is found which shows his nexus with the commission of offence.[9]
Law
of “Arrest”
Chapter V of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), deals with general powers of arrest of a person. Section 46, Cr.P.C. provides as to how arrest is to be made. Section 54, Cr.P.C. provides for various situations in which a police officer may without warrant; it reads as under:
(1) Any police officer may, without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest:
Firstly, any person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned;
Secondly, any person having in his possession without lawful excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall lie on such person, any implement of house breaking;
Thirdly, any person who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this Code or by order of the Provincial Government;
Fourthly, any person in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing;
Fifthly, any person who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty or who has escaped, or attempts to escape from lawful authority;
Sixthly, any
person reasonably suspected of being a deserter from the armed forces of
Seventhly, any person who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been concerned in, any act committed at any place out of Pakistan which, if committed in Pakistan, would have been punishable as an offence and, for which he is, under any law relating to extradition or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in Pakistan;
Eighthly, any released convict committing a breach of any rule under Section 565 sub-section (3);
Ninthly, any person for whose arrest a requisition has been received from another police officer, provided that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and it appears therefrom that the person might lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who issued the requisition.
Section 55, Cr.P.C. speaks of arrest of vagabonds etc. Section 57, Cr.P.C. provides for a situation when any person who in the presence of a police officer has committed or has been accused of committing a non-cognizable offence, refuses, on demand of such officer, to give his name and residence or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, such person may be arrested by such officer in order that his name or address may be ascertained. After it is ascertained such person shall be released on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdiction, if so required. If name and residence of such person could not be ascertained within twenty-four hours from the time of arrest or when he fails to execute a bond as required, he shall forthwith be forwarded to the nearest Magistrate having jurisdiction. Section 59, Cr.P.C. provides for power and procedure of arrest by private persons.
Then there is Section 151 envisaged in Chapter XIII of the Code, which authorizes a police officer to arrest a person to prevent commission of a cognizable offence. Then, Section 169 in the Chapter XIV of the Code brings to a situation where a suspect may be released if the Investigating Officer finds no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground for suspicion against him.
We also find some relevant provisions in Police Rules, 1934. Rule 24.1 pertains to procedure of recording of First Information. Rule 24.4 contemplates the situation when officer in charge of a police station suspects that the alleged offence has not been committed, and, it requires such officer to record the substance of the information along with his reasons for suspecting that the alleged offence has not been committed in the station diary and, so also to notify the informant that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated. Rule 24.7 speaks of cancellation of such false cases. Rule 25.2(1) authorizes an Investigating officer to “summon” to associate him with investigation. Rule 25.2(2) explicitly says, “No avoidable trouble shall be given to any person from whom enquiries are made and no person shall be unnecessarily detained.” Rule 25.2(3) casts duty upon an Investigating Officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation; it specifically provides that his object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and arrest the real offender or offenders, and that he shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person. Rule 26.1 stresses upon that the powers to arrest without warrant given to police under Section 54, Cr.P.C. are permissive and not obligatory. And, Rule 26.2 and 26. 9 provide for deferring in particular situations the making of arrest until the investigation is sufficiently complete, and, hence, not to unnecessarily interfere into the liberty of people.
Critical
Analysis
As discussed in preceding paragraphs, the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, under Article 9, provides for no person to be deprived of life or liberty, save in accordance with law. The word “life” has not been defined in the Constitution but it does not mean nor it can be restricted only to the vegetative or animal life or mere existence from concept of death. Life includes all such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionally.[11] Simply put, a wide meaning should be given to enable a man not only to sustain life but to enjoy it.[12] The Courts are under duty to guard against depriving the people of their liberty without due sanction of law.
Indiscriminate, unnecessary though lawful, and liberal arrests without warrant by Police curtails the liberty of people. Law therefore does not allow arbitrary arrests without a reasonable justification reached after some investigation about genuineness of the complaint. Law, on the contrary, requires an Investigating Officer to be generally slow in depriving a person of his liberty on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and, thus insistence by the interested complainant party regarding his immediate arrest should not persuade the Investigating Officer to abdicate his discretion and jurisdiction in the matter before the whims or wishes of the complainant party.[13]
Now let the relevant provisions of law be carefully examined.
Police officer has been conferred vast powers to arrest a person in the investigation of a cognizable offence, as obvious from Section 54, Cr.P.C. The language used in Section 54 Cr.P.C. itself gives great powers of discretion to police. Take, for instance, clause (a) of the section. The words used “any person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence”, a person “against whom a reasonable complaint has been made”, a person “against whom credible information has been received”, and, a person against whom “reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned” bestows wide discretion upon the police which has been major source of abuse and misuse of authority. Likewise, clause (b) of the said section expresses, “any person having in possession without lawful excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall lie on such person, any implement of house breaking” may be arrested without warrant by police. Can this “any implement of house breaking” not be a small iron tool? Other clauses have similar connotations, i.e. “reasonably be suspected” or “a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received” or “a reasonable suspicion exists”. Pragmatically speaking, these qualifying words, “reasonable”, “credible” and “reasonably” have become redundant in practice.
From this discussion, we gather that the Section 54, Cr.P.C, requires following conditions to be fulfilled:
(a) There should be a reasonable complaint;
(b) There should be credible information;
(c) There should be reasonable suspicion against the accused.
It would also be pertinent to evaluate the Section 157, Cr.P.C. which lays down the procedure where if, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156, Cr.P.C. to investigate (Section 156, Cr.P.C. relates to powers of a police officer to investigate into cognizable offence within his jurisdiction). The Section 157, Cr.P.C. requires two conditions to be fulfilled before a police officer is obliged to start an investigation;
(a) He should have reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. The reason to suspect must arise from the allegation made in the first information given to a police officer and at this stage, the question of adequate proof of facts alleged in F.I.R. does not arise; and,
(b) He should satisfy himself about the credibility of the information. A police officer has to draw his satisfaction about the credibility of information only on materials which were placed before him at that stage; i.e. the first information together with the documents, if any, enclosed or provided.
An answer to the question as to what constitutes reasonableness
in a complaint or what is credible information and what are limitations on a
police officer exercising such wide powers bestowed on him under Section 54,
Cr.P.C, is found in the case of Abdul
Qayyum v. The S.H.O. P.S. Shalimar,
“As the powers mentioned above given to the Police Officers under Section 54, Cr.P.C. encroaches upon the liberty of a person, this wide power has to be construed, interpreted and defined strictly. A general definition of what constitutes reasonableness in a complaint or suspicion and credibility of information cannot be given. Both must depend upon the existence of tangible legal evidence within the cognizance of the Police Officer and, he must judge whether the evidence is sufficient to establish the reasonableness and credibility of the charge, information or suspicion. It has been held down by this Court in 1992 P.Cr.LJ. An arrest which is beyond the provisions of Section 54, Cr.P.C. would be illegal and void per se.”
“Reasonable suspicion” implies that it should act as a safeguard to stop the misuse of an important power of arrests which must not be made on illogical basis. In Dumbell v. Roberts [1944] 1 All ER 326,Scott LJ, it was observed,
“The power possesses by constables to arrest without warrant ... provided always that they have reasonable grounds for their suspicion is a valuable protection to the community; but the power may easily be abused and become a danger to the community instead of a protection. The protection of the public is safeguarded by the requirement, alike of the common law, and so far as I know, of all statutes, that the constable shall before arresting satisfy himself that there do in fact exist reasonable grounds for suspicion of guilt.”
As to what is “reasonable suspicion”, the guidance has been laid down in the case of Muhammad Shafi v. Mohammad Boota, etc. vide PLD 1975 Lah. 729;
“The words ‘reasonable suspicion’ do not mean a mere vague surmise, but a bona fide belief on the part of the police officer that an offence has been committed or is about to be committed. Such belief has to be founded on some definite averments tending to throw suspicion on the person arrested. The secret information that the alleged detenue used to commit such like offences was, in no way sufficient to believe that he was concerned with the commission of the offence and the exercise of power under Section 54, Cr.P.C. by the respondent was totally uncalled for. The action of a police officer under Section 154, Cr.P.C. must be guarded in as much as he should first satisfy himself about the credibility of the information which as stated already, should relate to definite facts. It was not at all the intention of the law-giver that the police officer should at his own sweet will arrest anybody, he likes, although he may be a peace-loving citizen of the country.”
Then Police have powers under Section 151, Cr.P.C. to prevent the commission of a cognizable offence by arresting the person intending to commit such an offence, but an arrest made without an emergency contemplated by this section is illegal.[14]
A combined reading of Rules, 24.1, 24.4, 24.7, 25.2(1), 25.2(2), 25.2(3), 26.1 and 26.9 of the Police Rules, 1934, brings home the understanding that (i) F.I.R. is only information which raises a reasonable suspicion of the commission of a cognizable offence, (ii) Investigating Officer is not bound to investigate the case on basis of F.I.R. if he suspects the given information to be false, (iii) F.I.R. may be cancelled if after investigation, it is found to be maliciously false or false owing to mistake of law or fact to be non-cognizable or matter of civil nature, (iv) any person may be associated by the Investigation Officer during course of investigation of a cognizable offence but no such person shall be given trouble which could otherwise be avoided nor shall he be unnecessarily detained, (v) the Investigating Officer is bound under law to find out the truth of the matter under investigation, (vi) the authority vested in a police officer under Section 54, Cr.P.C. to arrest a person without warrant is permissive and not obligatory; (vii) Police may arrest a suspect only when escape from justice or inconvenient delay is likely to result from the police failing to arrest; (viii) Police may use powers under Section 170, Cr.P.C. in any bailable offence to take security from an accused person to appear before a Magistrate without first arresting him; (ix) Police shall defer making arrest of a particular person if there is no risk of his absconding, till the investigation is sufficiently complete; and, (x) If any interference with the liberty of the accused person is necessary to prevent him from absconding, and the facts justify arrest, the police shall arrest him and shall not interfere with his liberty unless they arrest him.
The discussion
makes it crystal clear that no arrest is to be made unless justified. The
existence of power to arrest is one thing, and the justification for the
exercise of it is quite another thing. Thus, the Supreme Court of
“No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of power is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another ... No arrest should be made without a reasonable justification reached after some investigation about genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person his liberty is a serious matter.”
As to justification of arrest during investigation of a cognizable offence, a reference to the suggestions provided by the Third Report of the National Police Commission in India was made in the case (Indian) of Shri D. K. Basu versus The State of West Bengal vide a writ petition (CRL) No. 539 of 1986,
“An arrest during investigation of a cognizable offence may be justified if,
(a) The case involves a grave offence such as murder, dacoity or rape etc. and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror-stricken victims; or
(b) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the process of law; or
(c) The accused is given to violent behavior and is likely to commit further offence unless his movements are brought under restraint; or
(d) The accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody, he is likely to commit similar offences again.”
Understanding
‘Discretion’ with police
It is trite that where law ends, discretion begins. Law does not allow discretion to be used for unjust and unreasonable pursuits in a society that is governed by a Constitution and Islamic norms and Islamic jurisprudence, as observed by Honourable Judge Mr. Justice Ali Nawaz Chawhan in Allah Rakhi versus The S.H.O. and others vide 2010 MLD 271 [Lahore].
‘Discretion’ has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as, the “liberty of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits.” The limits must be designed to ensure that decisions are principled rather than arbitrary, and must be those respecting human rights. Black’s Law Dictionary [Eighth Edition] defines ‘Discretion’ in a more eloquent manner as, “wise conduct and management; cautious discernment; prudence.”
The scope and limits of discretion to arrest with police are poorly understood. Simon Bronitt and Philp Stenning[15] discuss ‘police discretion’ while drawing distinction between ‘discretion’ and ‘interpretive judgment’. According to them, “discretion” involves some of the “interpretive judgment” while “interpretive judgment” does not involve “discretion”. Thus, while resorting to discretion, an officer must interpret a situation before he can exercise it appropriately. Typically speaking, a police officer in order to form an interpretive judgment is required to make a judgment as to whether an alleged offence, complained of, was prima facie committed. Thereafter, once he establishes that the offence had been committed, it would follow the process of discretion as to whether to take certain enforcement actions such as arrest of the accused, or otherwise. In exercise of the discretion at this stage, the officer must be guided by the law, rules, policies or guidelines on the matter.
Unfortunately, either due to lack of proper training or out of arbitrary, corrupt and unethical behavior on the part of the police, “discretion” has been widely misused in our country which costs the person arrested or detained in police lock-ups, incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem. During pre-trial detention, he may suffer both psychologically as well as financially. He may not be able to properly defend his case. He may be given to remands which generally prove much harsher due to the brutal methods police use merely in hope of extracting some admission of guilt from him or for extortion of money. Above all, an accused in pre-trial detention may feel pressurized to plead guilty. Moreover, it becomes mockery of justice when a person is deprived of his liberty first and later on, allegations against him are found by the Investigating agency itself bogus or false. It must not be out of sight that pre-trial arrest is neither meant to be punitive nor a punishment before verdict. It is only meant to facilitate investigation, and, hence, if an accused cooperates with the police and submits himself for investigation, an arrest of such accused may not be justified.
While saying so, I am not suggesting that powers of police in this regard should be curtailed, let alone the discretionary powers. Discretion is essential, nay inevitable, else limited resources available will make it impossible to enforce all laws against all offenders, and, law would fail to protect the community. However, there must be a check over use of the powers and, concrete steps should be taken for structuring its exercise through effective mechanism and guidelines.
Recommendations & Conclusion
Powers of arrest must be used in accordance with the right to life and liberty guaranteed under the Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The arrests by police must be right, just, fair and based upon dictates of reason. The arrest of persons without justification is one of the most serious encroachments upon the liberty of a subject.[16]
No arrest should be made unless absolutely necessary and unless the police are left with no alternative excepting arresting the accused to prevent him from committing more crimes or tampering with evidence or absconding or intimidating witnesses. Indiscriminate, unjustified and liberal arrests lead to loss of faith in the system. Regard should be given to the relevant law in letter and spirit.
Courts should be making sure that arrests are not made in routine manner and, without reasonable justification. If the police officer arrests any person for misuse of his powers of arrest exercised as per various provisions of Cr.P.C, he will expose himself for prosecution under section 220, Pakistan Penal Code, I860, which makes the offence punishable for imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine or with both, and is triable by the Court of Session. However, there is barely any sufficient check against misuse of police powers under the provisions. Notwithstanding, the safeguards contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Constitution, wrongful and illegal exercise of powers of arrest is seen. Again, very rare examples are found that suggest that departmental actions are taken against police officials being caught in misusing their powers.
Before I leave, I would like to place few suggestions that if taken seriously, should definitely help bringing the indiscriminate and liberal arrests without warrant by police, in check;
(i) Law should specifically provide that mere suspicion of commission of an offence shall not be a ground for making arrest;
(ii) Police officials should be given specific training as to matters concerning arrests and curtailing liberty of people. They should be discouraged for making unjustified arrests;
(iii) Police officers may be empowered to issue “appearance notices” to suspects instead of arresting them. The notices may be served in order to obtain their attendance provided that the power to arrest exists;
(iv) Frequent use of Section 170 Cr.P.C. be encouraged for police officers to take security from an accused person to appear before a Magistrate without first arresting him, as contemplated under Rule 26.1, Police Rules, 1934;
(v) It should be ensured that no person who had been called for the purpose of inquiry, interrogation or investigation is arrested or detained only for the purpose of questioning him;
(vi) Department of Police should issue instructions that a police officer making an arrest of a person should record in the case diary the reasons for making such arrest;
(vii) The said case diaries or any information justifying the arrest of a person should be laid before Courts to show that there are reasonable grounds for believing that detenue is involved in the crime that he is charged with, as directed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Government of Sindh and others v. Raisa Farooq and others vide 1994 SCMR1283;
(viii) The S.H.O.s may be directed to send detailed reports of persons who although not nominated in F.I.Rs had been detained in exercise of powers under Section 54, CR.P.C, on a daily basis to the Magistrates having jurisdiction;
(ix) Magistrates may be required to ensure such reports reach them so as to keep a check on the matter. Magistrates, being supervisors of Investigation process, should see to it that arrests are not made in a routine manner; and,
(x) The police officials who are found indulged in making arbitrary arrests and misusing their powers should be prosecuted in Courts and be penalized by the Department to make them exemplary for others.[17]
To sum up, in absence of an effective mechanism to check such gross violation of law, the State becomes responsible to design one to make sure that the law is not violated. No one would deny that it is the poor for most of the time, who suffer at the hands of police. A message is reflected as if poverty is a crime in this country; the poor become easy targets of police excesses. Responsibility devolves upon the State to ensure the redress in such unwarranted arrests. It may certainly be a difficult task to bring and maintain balance between the needs of the Investigating agency and the protection of citizenry from oppression and injustice at their hands, but it has to be done.
---------------------------
[1]. Source: The News, International, dated November
18, 2015.
[2]. Ref: Rule 3, Federal Investigation Agency
(Inquiries and Investigation) Rules, 2002.
[3]. Ref: Rule 5, ibid.
[4]. Ref: Rule 6, ibid.
[5]. Aulakh, Dr. Abdul Majeed, Criminal
Justice System in
[6]. National Council of Welfare, 2000: Pt. I
[7]. 2014 YLR 2152.
[8]. PLD 2007 SC 539.
[9]. 2014 YLR 2152.
[10]. Patrick Henry: Life Correspondences &
Speeches (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891), Vol. I, pg. 268
[11]. PLD 1994 SC 693
[12]. Ibid
[13]. PLD 2005
[14]. 1993 P.Cr.L.J. 2168
[15]. Simon Bronitt and Philip Stenning,
Understanding discretion in modern policing, @
http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/files/2011/12/CrimLJ_v35_pt06_Dec2011_offprint_bronnit_sten
ning1.pdf (visited on December 01, 2015 at 1025 hours).
[16]. AIR 1926
[17]. Suggestions (vii) & (viii) had been
recommended in directions issued by Honourable Mr. Justice Ali Nawaz Chawhan,
Judge Lahore High Court in Allah Rakhi v.
The S.H.O. & others vide 2010 MLD 271