| Case ID |
29e472cd-b4dd-4aee-b6da-c265d7e1f033 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No 687 of 1951 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 06, 1952 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court accepted the appeals preferred by the Crown against the order of acquittal of Fida Hussain, Fazal Dad, and Muhammad Rafiq. The court ruled that the respondents were guilty under section 29 of the Police Act for absenting themselves from the Police Lines without permission. The judgment clarified that Rule 16.21 of the Police Rules was within the legal authority and did not violate the Police Act. Consequently, the respondents were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 or, in default of payment, to undergo two months of rigorous imprisonment each. |
| Summary |
In the case of Criminal Appeal No 687 of 1951, the Lahore High Court examined the actions of three police constables—Fida Hussain, Fazal Dad, and Muhammad Rafiq—who were accused of being absent from the Police Lines during a critical inquiry into a robbery case. The court discussed the legal implications of the Police Act, 1861, particularly sections 7, 12, and 29, alongside Rule 16.21 of the Police Rules, 1934. The decision emphasized that the respondents' absence was unjustified and constituted a violation of their duties as police officers. The court ruled that confinement to the Police Lines was not considered punishment but rather a necessary disciplinary measure. The judgment underscored the importance of maintaining discipline within the police force and upheld the authority of the Inspector-General of Police to impose such rules. The final ruling resulted in the conviction of the respondents, reflecting the court's commitment to uphold the law and ensure accountability within the police ranks. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
S. A. RAHMAN,
M.A. SOOFI
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
THE CROWN
|
| Respondents |
FIDA HUSSAIN,
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ,
FAZAL DAD
|
| Citations |
1954 SLD 60,
1954 PLD 402
|
| Other Citations |
Emperor v. Muhammad Fazal-e-Bari, 46 Cr. L J 1945,
A I R 1932 Cal. 285,
Muhammad Ali v. Emperor (A I R 1928 Lah. 164),
Muhammad Naim v. Emperor (A I R 1927 Lah, 15)
|
| Laws Involved |
Police Act, 1861,
Police Rules, 1934
|
| Sections |
7,
12,
29,
16.21
|