Whether the term
‘Police authorities’ used in section 22-A (6) Cr.P.C. includes F.I.A. and if it does, whether the judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable. ?
It shall be to scrutinize few provisions of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (hereinafter Act of 1974). F.I.A. was constituted under section 3 of this Act and under section 4 superintendence and administration of agency shall vest in Director General of agency.
Section 4(2) of the Act of 1974 provides that the administration of the Agency shall vest in the Director General who shall exercise, in respect of the Agency, the powers of an Inspector General of Police under the Police Act, 1861. While Section 5(1) in most unequivocal manner provides that the members of the Agency shall, for the purpose of an inquiry or investigation under this Act, have throughout Pakistan such powers, including powers relating to search, arrest of persons and seizure of property, and such duties, privileges and liabilities as the officers of Provincial Police have in relation to the investigation of offences under the Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force. Likewise, section 5(2), for the purpose of any inquiry, empowers a member of the agency, who is not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector to exercise any of the powers of an officer-in-charge of a Police Station.
Therefore, when status, functions, rights, privileges and liabilities of officials of F.I.A. are same as that of Provincial Police officer under the Cr.P.C., ex-officio justice of peace is very much competent to issue directions to the respondents as it can issue to the Provincial police and contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding lack of jurisdiction of ex-officio justice of peace in matters of F.I.A. is not tenable.
The term ‘police authorities’ used in section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include FIA officials and does not only connote provincial police authorities especially when FIA authorities can use all the powers of a police officer of provincial police under the Cr.P.C. There is no quibble that there may be some provisions of Act of 1974, which one may find in direct conflict with the provisions of Cr.P.C. and in that case, being special enactment, provisions of the Act of 1974 shall take precedence but this is not the case in instant lis as no provision of the Act of 1974 contradicts the powers of ex-officio justice of peace granted u/s 22-A (6) Cr.P.C.
An aggrieved person can also seek his remedy against F.I.A. by filing complaint before the ex-officio justice of peace. Therefore, an aggrieved person is fully competent to file a complaint u/s 22-A(6) Cr.P.C with the ex-officio justice of peace against any neglect, failure, or excess committed by the F.I.A. authorities and can conveniently get adequate redressal of his grievance from that quasi-judicial forum.
As it is clearly established that petitioner had an alternate remedy under section 22-A (6) Cr.P.C. and in such like cases, this Court always shows reluctance to encourage the practice to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. It has become more necessary than ever to put a legitimate check on the carefree constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution, considering the heavy burden of pending cases in the Constitutional Courts. The provisions of Section 22-A (6) Cr.P.C. were made part of the statute book with the object to reduce the burden of this Court by designating Sessions Judges and on their nomination Additional Sessions Judges as ex-officio justice of peace to share the powers of this Court in the matters mentioned in sub-section (6) of section 22-A Cr.P.C. Learn more
No comments:
Post a Comment