2018 P L C (C.S.) 174
[Balochistan High Court]
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, JJ
NASIR ALI
Versus
CHAIRMAN BALOCHISTAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and 4 others
C.P. No.105 of 2016, decided on 28th March, 2017.
(a) Balochistan Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (VI of 2003) -
--
----S. 2 (m) ---Balochistan Police Act (X of 2011), S.42---Police Rules, 1934, Vol. III, Chap.
XXVII, Rr.27.1 to 27.39 ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.4(1)(t) , 173, 190, 492, 493,
494 & 495 ---Advertisement for appointment of District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney -
--"Public Prosecutor" and "Prosecuting Inspector" ---Contention of petitioners was that
"Prosecuting Inspectors" and "Prosecuting Sub- Inspec tors" did not fall within the definition of
"Pleader" or "Public Prosecutor" and they could not be appointed District Attorney and Assistant
District Attorney ---Validity ---"Prosecuting Inspector" and "Prosecuting Sub- Inspector"
discharged functions before the Judicial Magistrate, exercise powers and fulfilled duties within
the meaning of Ss.493, 494 & 495, Cr.P.C.---Experience of "Prosecuting Inspector" and "Prosecuting Sub- Inspector" was to be considered as "Public Prosecutor" ---"Prosecuting
Inspectors" be ing "Public Prosecutors" qualified to take examination for the posts of District
Attorney and Assistant District Attorney ---Chairman Public Service Commission awarded more
than fifty percent marks to the petitioner candidate who could not secure first posi tion for single
post of District Attorney ---Petitioner made bald allegations against the Chairman Public Service
Commission ---Whenever aspirant candidate could not qualify the test/examination, he/she tried
to level baseless allegations against the recruiting agency/interviewing committee ---Such
practice on the part of a practicing lawyer was to be condemned and discouraged ---No one was
to be allowed to ruin the professional ethics or defame and demoralize the integrity of any individual ---Petitioner had fa iled to allege any previous enmity or animus against Chairman
Public Service Commission ---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan ---
----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court ---Scope ---Question of fact was not
amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
(c) Prosecutor ---
----Scope and meaning.
Blacks' Law Dictionary rel.
Abdur Razzaq Sharr for Petitioner.
Dawood Khan Kasi and Masood Tareen for Respondents Nos.3 and 4.
Abdul Lat eef Kakar, Assistant Advocate General along with Dilawar Khan Kasi, Law
Officer Balochistan Public Service Commission, Quetta for State.
Dates of hearing: 3rd, 11th, 17th May, 2016 and 16th December, 2016.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL, J. --- This judgment shall dispose
of Constitutional Petition No.105/2016 wherein the following relief has been claimed by the
petitioner:
"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the impugned orders/ recommendations No.PSC -
2016/Result/2601 dated 26.01.2016 and No.PSC -2016/Result/2901 dated 29.01.2016
may kindly be declared null and void, illegal contrary to law and relevant prescribed rules and the petitioner may kindly be declared as qualified and successful candidate by disqualifying the private respondents fr om the both the posts on the ground of lacking
prescribed experience and criteria/qualification. Further the petitioner may kindly be declared successful on the strength of numbers given by the interview committee excluding the Chairman of BPSC in the inte rest of justice and fairplay. Any other relief
which this Hon'ble [sic] deem fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner"
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.1 has passed the
order in utter violation of law and prescribed rules; that the respondent No.l's declaration of
numerous candidates as favorable for the post of District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney despite lacking the requisite qualification is also indicative of malice and mala fide; that the respondent No.1 has resorted to cherry -picking, while making recommendations for
appointment of respondents Nos.3 and 4 despite petitioner's success in the written test as well as viva-voce; that the vindictive attitude of the respondent No.1 was otherwise uncalled for as the
petitioner had succeeded to satisfactorily answer all the questions that were asked from him during the interview; that in another Constitutional Petition bearing No.397 of 2013 relating to the status of Prosecuting Inspectors and Public Prosecutors the decision of this court is yet to
come, however the respondent No.1 by virtue of recommendation of respondents Nos.3 and 4 for their appointments has already decided the controversy involved therein, which is yet another illegal act on the part of respondent No.1. He finally sought declaration to nullify the
recommendation for appointment of respondents Nos.3 and 4 and direct that the petitioner was duly qualified candidate for both the posts and therefore to be declared as such.
3. Mr. Dawood Khan Kasi, Advocate (Martyred) was representing the private respondents
and he partly argued the case but due to his sad martyrdom in the civil hospital incident Mr.
Masood Tareen, Advocate beheld the brief.
Mr. Dawood Khan Kasi, Advocate (m artyred) contended that the petitioner cannot be
allowed to run with hare and hunt with hounds, because on one hand he has left the prosecuting
inspectors from other zones but has only pinpointed the respondents Nos.3 and 4 merely on the ground that the Pr osecuting Inspectors and Prosecuting Sub- Inspectors do not fall within the
definition of Government Pleader or Public Prosecutor; that the petitioner has not come to this
court with clean hands and suppressed the fact that he himself is an English Teacher in a school
at Gawadar. He mainly relied on sections 492, 493, 494 and 495, Cr.P.C. and stated that subject
to proviso to Section 173, Cr.P.C. the office in charge of the police station forwards the challan to the magistrate through the public prosecutor a nd under the Police Rules, 1934 the prosecuting
inspectors and prosecuting sub- inspectors are deemed to be public prosecutors. He stated that
any person, who represents the state before the criminal court is defined as public prosecutor in law, while prose cuting inspector or prosecuting sub- inspector discharges the duties of public
prosecutor before the judicial magistrate and their functions are absolutely analogous to the functions discharged by any District Attorney or Assistant District Attorney before the court of sessions. He urged with vehemence that petitioner on having come to know about his defeat in the competitive examination had come forward by challenging the qualifications of private respondents and being cautious about the fact that he could not secure the first position in the examination and viva -voce for the post of District Attorney or at least second position in the final
result of Assistant District Attorney and for these reasons leveled personal allegations against respondent No.1 (Chai rman). He finally urged for dismissal of the petition being frivolous,
concocted and based on surmises and conjectures only.
4. Learned AAG assisted by the Law Officer of the BPSC adopted the arguments put forth
on behalf of the private respondents by adding that though the respondent No.1 declared the petitioner successful, however the cumulative result of the petitioner could not secure a place for
him on merit. Adding to the arguments he further stated that the act of respondent No.1 i s not
vindictive as the petitioner had been allotted number by all the members of the interviewing committee, rather the petitioner's failure to secure sufficient marks, resulted in his disappointment and failure. He finally prayed for dismissal of the pet ition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
Before attending the question involved in the instant petition it is worth mentioning here
that the petitioner contended that an identical case bearing Constitutional Pe tition No.397 of
2013, is pending adjudication before this court, therefore respondent No.1 by preempting the constitutional jurisdiction of this court has entered into the controversy, which is still subjudice, and resolved the same on his own. We, theref ore constrain to inquire about the nature and status
of the referred constitutional petition, perusal whereof revealed that the petitioners Muhammad Naeem and others have filed the said petition, wherein relief has been sought against the Inspector General of Police Balochistan, Quetta for not deciding/responding the request sent by
the Prosecution Department Government of Balochistan for induction of Prosecuting Inspectors into Prosecution Department, whereas on the other hand the purported posts of Distri ct Attorney
and Assistant District Attorney announced by the Commission are on the strength and payroll of the Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department, Government of Balochistan, therefore the proposition involved in the instant case has absolutely no nex us with the prayer made in referred
to petition.
6. The petitioner has assailed the selection of respondents Nos.3 and 4 on two grounds.
Firstly, that the said respondents being Prosecuting Inspectors do not fulfill the definition of
Public Prosecutors, therefore, were neither qualified to take the examinations for the post of DA/ADA, secondly, on question asked regarding the character of former Chief Justice of Pakistan, the petitioner responded with admiring/ appreciable remarks, on which respondent
No.1 became annoyed and asked the petitioner to leave the room. The petitioner pleaded that
therefore, he had been failed in the final result and denied appointment on this ground too.
7. The foremost challenge thrown by the petitioner was with regard to qualif ication of
respondents Nos.3 and 4 on the strength that they being serving Prosecuting Inspectors in
Balochistan Police were not qualified Public Prosecutors.
8. Before attending the question involved in this petition, it would be advantageous to
ponder upon the definition of the term 'Public Prosecutor'. In the history of codified laws of the sub-continent, the nomenclature of public prosecutor was firstly introduced in British India,
when the Governor General had appointed the 'Indian Law Commission' (Com mission) to deal
with substantive criminal law and procedures of court. The commission after descending and collecting various legislations came up with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Wherein the Section 4 (1)(t) of the Code defines the 'Public Pros ecutor' as under;
"Public Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor means any person appointed under section 492,
and includes any person acting under the directions of a Public Prosecutor and any person conducting a prosecution on behalf of the State in any High Cour t in the exercise of its
original criminal jurisdiction."
The Code in order to regulate the procedure before the criminal courts stipulates the role
of public prosecutor and Part IX, Chapter XXXVIII provides power to appoint public prosecutor, its functio ns and duties, which being relevant are reproduced herein below:
"492. Power to appoint Public Prosecutor . (1) The Provincial Government may
appoint, generally, or in any case, or for any specified class of cases, in any local area, one or more officers to be called Public Prosecutors.
493. Public Prosecutor may plead in all Courts in cases under his charge; Pleaders
privately instructed to be under his direction. The Public Prosecutor may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in w hich any case of which he has
charge is under inquiry, trial or appeal, and if any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute in any Court any person in any such case, the Public Prosecutor shall conduct the prosecution and the pleader so instructed s hall act therein, under his directions.
494. Effect of withdrawal from prosecution . Any Public Prosecutor may, with the [....]
consent of the Court, before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respe ct of any one or more of the offences for which
he is tried, and upon such withdrawal;
(a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences;
(b) if it is made after a charge has been fram ed, or when under this Code no charge is
required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences;
495. Permission to conduct prosecution . (1) Any Magistrate inquiring into or trying any
case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than an officer of
police below the rank to be prescribed by the Provincial Government in this behalf but no person other than the Advocate -General, Standing Counsel, Government Solicitor, Public
Prosecutor or other officer generally or specially empowered by the Provincial Government in this behalf, shall be entitled to do so without such permission.
(2) Any such officer shall have the like power of withdrawing from the prosecution as is provided by section 494 and the provisions of that secti on shall apply to any
withdrawal by such officer.
(3) Any person conducting the prosecution may do so personally or by a pleader.
(4) An officer of police shall not be permitted to conduct the prosecution if he has taken any part in the investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted.
9. The Balochistan Prosecution Services (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2003
(Act, 2003) in Section 2 (m) defines the public prosecutor in the following manner:
"2.(m) "Public Prosecutor" means a prosecutor appointed by the Provincial Government in accordance with the Code.
And its section 2(c) defines the 'Code' means the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
The powers, duties, functions and responsibilities are defined in more elab orative manner
in the Act 2003, which are somewhat homologous to the stipulations contained in Chapter XXVIII of the Code.
Chapter -III of the Act, 2003 relating to powers and functions of public prosecutors runs
as under:
Functions of a Public Prosecutor. --- 7. A public Prosecutor, in discharge of his lawful
duties and in respect of a case, the prosecution whereof, is lawfully assigned to him, shall perform the following functions, namely: -
(a) it shall be the duty of a public prosecutor to safe guard the interest of the state in
prosecution of cases before the competent courts.
(b) The Public Prosecutor being competent in respect of a particular case or class of cases shall on receipt of the final report: -
(i) send the same before the competent court for trial; or
(ii) withhold the same for want of proper evidence and return it to the Investigation
Officer with written direction to resubmit the report after removal of the
deficiencies so identified by him.
(c) in respect of compoundable offences other than those which are punishable by death or life imprisonment, the Prosecutor General, and in respect of compoundable offences punishable with imprisonment for seven years or less, the
District Public Prosecutor, may withhold prosecution if reasonable grounds exist
for the Public Prosecutor to believe that the same shall be compounded.
Provided that if the offence is not compounded within a period of one month, he shall
send the report in the competent court for prosecution and trial.
(d) in respect of offences other than those which are punishable by death or life
imprisonment, the Prosecutor General, and, in respect of offences punishable with
imprisonment for seven years or less, the District Public Prosecutor, may apply
supported with reasons, to the court of competent jurisdiction for the discharge of case if the institution of the case has been found to be mala fide, wrongful or weak from evidentiary view point:
Provided that an application under this section shall accompany the report under section 173 of the Code;
Provided further that the competent court may dispose off the application as it may deem fit; and
(e) in respect of any case instituted by a public prosecutor before a competent court,
any private person representing the complainant shal l act under the direction of
the Public Prosecutor.
Conduct of Prosecution --- 8. The prosecution of criminal offences shall be conducted in
the following manner, namely: -
(a) the Investigation Officer shall send the case together with the evidence to the concerned Public Prosecutor;
(b) Prosecution shall not take effect against persons other than those designated as the accused on the basis of available evidence, by the competent Public Prosecutor;
(c) the Public Prosecutor shall have the right of audience before any court in respect of any case assigned to him;
(d) a Public Prosecutor may, within his jurisdiction, issue general guideline to police officers regarding the state of their investigation and other matters necessary for the fulfillment of the purp ose of effective prosecution;
(e) District Public Prosecutor may ask Head of Investigation in district to take disciplinary action against Investigation Officer, where sufficient reasons exist to believe that Investigating Officer has colluded or has not e xercised due diligence
in conducting investigation, misrepresented the facts of the case or prepared the
report inefficiently; and
(f) The Prosecutor General or the District Public Prosecutor may, when he deems necessary in cases where police officers fail s to follow any suggestions or
instructions of Public Prosecutor under this Ordinance, call for disciplinary action
against the Investigation Officer with the competent authority and the
Government.
9. Liaison with Advocate General The Prosecutor General s hall keep liaison with
Advocate General to ascertain the progress of criminal appeals and revision and other
legal proceedings pending before the Supreme Court. High Court or any other court established under the law.
10. Powers of A Prosecutor Public Pros ecutor. A public prosecutor, in discharge of
his lawful duties and in respect of a case lawfully assigned to him, may exercise the following powers, namely: -
(a) upon expiry of time period mentioned in the Code for submission of final report or after submission of final report, if necessary for proper and through investigation of an offence, a Public Prosecutor may request the court to issue warrants for search, seizure or inspection of evidence for compliance by the Investigation Officer;
(b) a Public Prosecutor may call for record or any other document from any law
enforcement agency upon expiry of time period mentioned in the Code for submission of final report;
(c) District Public Prosecutor in case of offences carrying seven years or less imprisonm ent and the Prosecutor for all other offences may withdraw
prosecution, subject to prior approval of the Government"
10. The Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861) was repealed by the Police Order, 2002 promulgated
on 14th August 2002. While, the Police Order, 2002 was repealed by Balochistan Police Act, 2011 (Act X of 2011) which was promulgated on 24th August, 2011. The Section 42 of the Balochistan Police Act, 2011 adopts the Police Rules, 1934 in the following manner:
"42. Rule making and adoption thereof (1) The Government may by notification in the
official gazette make rules for carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.
(2) The government may also from time to time by a notification in the official gazette adopt or make effective, any rules made under an y law for the time being
in force.
(3) The Police Rules, 1934, shall be deemed to have been made under this Act:
Provided that in the event of any inconsistency, the Government shall by notification in the official gazette make inoperative any such rules t o the extent of its inconsistency."
Thus, afore referred provision shows that despite repealing the mother legislation, the
Police Rules, 1934 remained intact and were fully adopted without any amendment or alteration.
The volume -III, Chapter XXVII of the Police Rule, 1934 relates to prosecution and court duties,
whereas its Rules 27.1 to 27.39, deal with prosecution and court duties including the role of the Investigation Officer and prosecuting staff. The Rule 27.4 stipulates that, all the police officer s
viz. all superintendents, and Assistant and Deputy Superintendents of police are, with reference
to Section 492 of the code, ex -officio public prosecutors in respect of all cases committed from
their respective duties for trial before the session courts. But a clog imposed under subsection (4)
of section 495, Cr.P.C. is to be kept in mind, which restricts that "An officer of police shall not
be permitted to conduct the prosecution if he has taken any part in the investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted.
As per Rule 27.4(2) of the said Rules, all Prosecuting Inspectors and Prosecuting Sub-
Inspectors are deemed to be public prosecutors and it is instructive to reproduce the rule which states
"(2) Prosecuting inspe ctors and prosecuting sub- inspectors of police are appointed
public prosecutors in the local areas specified in the list below for all cases which may be enquired into or be tried by a magistrate including a magistrate having powers under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Officers Local areas
Every Prosecuting Inspector The District in which
of Police. Prosecuting Inspector is
stationed
Every prosecuting Sub- Inspector The District at the
of police stationed at the headquarters of which
headquarter of a district the prosecuting sub-
Inspector is stationed.
Every Prosecuting Sub- Inspector The sub- Division at the
of police stationed at the headquarters of which the
headquarters of a sub- division the prosecuting sub- inspector
is stationed."
11. After examining various provisions with regard to appointment of Public Prosecutors and
having held that pursuant to the amendment in section 173, Cr.P.C. by Act, XXV of 1992, the
Prosecuting Sub- Inspe ctors and Prosecuting Inspectors confirmed to be Public Prosecutors, the
proviso to section 173, Cr.P.C. as added by the Act, XXV of 1992 states that:
"[Provided that, where investigation is not completed within a period of fourteen days
from the date of r ecording of the first information report under section 154, the officer
incharge of the police station, within three days of the expiration of such period, forward to the Magistrate through the Public prosecutor, an interim report in the form prescribed by the Provincial Government stating therein the result of the investigation made until
then and the Court shall commence the trial on the basis of such interim report, unless, for reasons to be recorded, the Court decides that the trial should not so commence." (emphasis provided).
Section 190, Cr.P.C. stipulates conditions required for initiation of proceedings and
provides that all Magistrate of First Class, or any other Magistrate specially empowered by the Provincial Government on the recommendation of the High Court may take cognizance of any offence.
The combined study of proviso to Section 173, Cr.P.C. with subsection (2) of Section
190, Cr.P.C. reveals that the office in charge of the police station shall within three days of expiration of such peri od (fourteen days) forward a challan/indictment -papers to the magistrate
through the public prosecutor (emphasis provided). Thus, under Volume -III, Chapter XXVI ,
Rule 4(2) of the Police Rules, 1934, all Prosecuting Inspectors and Prosecuting Sub- Inspector s of
Police are appointed public prosecutors in the local areas, specified in the list provided therein or as assigned by the Provincial Government.
12. According to Notification No.SOR -II (16)5/S&GAD -79/477- 576 dated 11th March, 2008
the Minimum qualifica tion for appointment as District Attorney (B -19) is (i) Degree in Law
(minimum second Division) from a recognized University; and (ii), Seven years experience as an Advocate, Government Pleader or a Public Prosecutor. And for the post of Assistant District
Attorney (B -18), (i) Degree in Law (minimum second division) from a recognized University;
and (ii) Five years experience as an Advocate, Government Pleader or a Public Prosecutor.
In general dictionary meanings, a 'Prosecutor' is the government lawyer w ho investigates
and tries criminal cases. The Public Prosecutor is an officer appointed by the government, to prosecute all offences; he is the attorney general or his deputy. A private prosecutor is one who prefers an accusation against a party whom he suspects to be guilty.
Government appointed attorney who initiates and pursues court cases against suspected
criminals called Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the UK and District Attorney in the US.
Whereas according to the Blacks' Law Dictionary ' A public official appointed or elected
to represent the state in criminal cases in a particular judicial district; PROSECUTOR (1), Abbr.D.A. Also termed public prosecutor; state's attorney; prosecuting attorney. Cf. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY.
Keeping in view the definition of Public Prosecutor, since Prosecuting Inspector and
Prosecuting Sub- Inspector discharge his functions before the judicial magistrate, exercises his
powers, fulfill his duties and liabilities within the meaning of Sections 493, 494 and 495 of the
Code, therefore, for all practical purposes their experience as Prosecuting Inspectors and
Prosecuting Sub- Inspectors shall be considered as of Public Prosecutor. It will be against the
scheme of law and will offend the legitimate right of an indiv idual under Articles 4, 25 and 27 of
the Constitution, who being Prosecuting Inspector or Prosecuting Sub- Inspector and despite
having the requisite experience, if denied to contest for the office, which requires the experience of Public Prosecutors.
Thus, in the light of aforesaid no cavil is left to hold that respondents Nos.3 and 4 being
Prosecuting Inspectors are 'Public Prosecutors', therefore, they were duly qualified to take the examination for the post of District Attorney and Assistant Distric t Attorney.
13. Now the next issue that needs to be focused is the alleged derogatory remarks on the
character of former Chief Justice of Pakistan, it is to be considered that respondent No.3 Muhammad Ismail son of Shafi Muhammad secured 153 marks out of 220 for the post of District Attorney (B -19) while the petitioner secured 113 out of 220 marks. The respondent No.4
Muhammad Anis son of Ali Muhammad secured 147 out of 220 marks and the petitioner secured 123 out of 220 marks for the post of Assistant Dist rict Attorney (B -18). The reply and detail
report submitted by the BPSC further reveals that the respondent No.1 (worthy Chairman) awarded 13 out of 25 marks and 15 out of 25 marks to the petitioner in viva -voce respectively for
the post of District Attorn ey and Assistant District Attorney. Therefore, the petitioner's
contention that he had been failed by the respondent No.1 on account of his praising remarks in favour of former Chief Justice of Pakistan is not worthy of credence. After declaring the result s
of written test the BPSC formulates an Interview Committee comprising of Members and
Subject Specialists headed by the Chairman, BPSC. Each member of the interview committee can award a maximum of 25 marks to the candidate based on his performance in the interview
and thereafter on basis of overall performance i.e. the marks secured in written test and in the interview, which accumulate the final result of the candidates, which ultimately determines his position in the merit list.
14. The question arises that when respondent No.1 being Chairman did not fail the petitioner
and awarded him more than fifty percent marks but on basis of his cumulative result (written test and viva -voce) though he had successfully qualified the examination but could not secure the
first position for a single post of District Attorney and at least second position for the two advertised post of the Assistant District Attorney, he could not be appointed against any of the advertised positions. It seems that the petitioner on having come to know about the final results
initially decided to challenge the candidature of successful candidates on the strength of their respective qualification/experience but same could not help him to achieve his object because he could not secure first or second position for either post. He, therefore, decided to come forward with this bald and concocted allegation against the Chairman just to make out and to bring his cause within the purview of constitutional discrimination on account of alleged grudge or animus of the Chairman against the former Chief Justice of Pakistan.
15. We are dismayed to observe here that this tendency has become a run of the mill that
whenever aspirant candidates cannot qualify the competitive test/examination, they/he/she as la st
resort, try/tries to level baseless allegations against the recruiting agency/interviewing
committee. This practice on the part of a practicing lawyer is highly condemnable and shall be discouraged without any hesitation. The sanctity of the institutions and canon of professional ethics as an advocate shall always be kept in mind and no one should be allowed to ruin the professional ethics or defame and demoralize the integrity of any individual. The petitioner has
failed to allege any previous enmity or personal animus against respondent No.1 being Chairman
of the Commission, while after categorical denial by respondent No.1 to the aforesaid allegation
i.e. the contention of the petitioner cannot be termed as a case of constitutional discrimination rather it has become a mixed question of facts, which is not amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of this court as envisaged under Article, 199 of the Constitution amenable.
Thus, the aforesaid discussion brings us to irresistible conclusion that the pe titioner has
failed to substantiate his contention through cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence. Therefore, for these added reasons the petition being baseless, frivolous and misconceived is dismissed accordingly.
ZC/53/Bal. Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.