PLJ 2017 Quetta 114 (DB)
Present : NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN AND MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL , JJ.
NASIR ALI --Petitioner
versus
CHAIRMAN BALOCHISTAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION KOYLA PHATTAK and 4
others --Respondents
C.P No. 105 of 2016, decided on 28- 03-2017.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898) --
----Ss. 4(1)(f), 492, 493, 494 & 495-- Balochistan Prosecution Services Act, 2003, S. 7- A--
Powers to appoint public prosecutor --Functions and duties --Declaration of candidates for District
Attorney and Assistant District Attorney --Question of --Whether prosecuting inspector and
prosecuting sub- inspector fall within definition of Government pleader or public prosecutor or
not--Petitioner disappointed by interview committee --Validity --In general dictionary meanings, a
‘Prosecutor’ is government lawyer who investigates and tries criminal cases --The Public
Prosecutor is an officer appointed by government, to prosecute all offences; he is attorney
general or his deputy --A private prosecutor is one who prefers an accusation against a party
whom he suspects to be guilty --Keeping in view definition of Public Prosecutor, since
Prosecuting Inspector and Prosecuting Sub- Inspector discharge his functions before judicial
magistrate exercises his powers, fulfill his duties and liabilities within meaning of Sections 493
494 and 495 of 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 scheme of law and will offend legitimate right of an individual under Articles 4, 25 and
27 of Constitution, who being Prosecuting Inspector or Prosecuting Sub- Inspector and despite
having requisite experience, if denied to contest for office, which requires experi ence of Public
Prosecutors --Thus, in light of aforesaid no cavil is left to hold that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
being Prosecuting Inspectors are ‘Public Prosecutors’, therefore, they were duly qualified to take examination for post of District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney. [Pp. 126 & 127] A &
B
Mr. Abdur Razzaq Sharr, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. Dawood Khan Kasi, Advocate (Martyred in the Civil Hospital Suicide Bomb Explosion on
8
th August 2016) Masood Tareen, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 & 4.
Mr. Abdul Lateef Kakar, Asstt. AG alongwith Mr. Dilawar Khan Kasi Law Officer, Balochistan Public Service Commission, Quetta for State.
Dates of hearing: 3.5.2016, 11.5.2016, 17.5.2016.16.12.2016.
JUDGMENT
Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail, J.--This judgme nt 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 26.1.2016 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 from 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 interest of j ustice 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 a nd prescribed rules; that the Respondent No. 1’s declaration of
numerous candidates as favorable for the post of District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney despite lacking the requisite qualification is alst indicative of malice and mala fide ; that
the Respondent No. 1 has resorted to cherry picking, while making recommendations for
appointment of Respondent 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 othe rwise 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 Respondent 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 Respondent 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.
4. Mr. Dawood Khan Kasi, Advoca te (martyred) 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 Respondent Nos.3 and 4 merely on the ground that the Prosecuting 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 Teach er 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 and 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 pr osecuting 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 befo re 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 ( Chairman). 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 is not vindic tive 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 petition.
5. H eard 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 Petition No. 397 of 2013, is
pending adjudication before this Court, therefore Respondent No. 1 by pre -empting the
constitutional jurisdiction of this Court has entered into the controversy, which is still subjudice and resolved the same on his own. We, therefore 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 Gen eral 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 Di strict 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 nexus with the prayer made in referred to petition.
6. The petitioner has assailed the selection of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on two grounds. Firstly, that the said respondents being Prosecuting Inspectors do not fulfill the definition of Public Prosecutor s, 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 N o. 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 qualification of
Respondent 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’ (Commission ) 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 Prosecutor’ 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 Court 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 functions 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 which 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 instruct ed shall 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 respect 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 framed, 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 b y 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 section 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 mor e elaborative manner in the
Act 2003, which are somewhat homologous to the stipulations contained in Chapter XXVIII of the Code.
Chapter -Ill 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 safegua rd 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 Cou rt 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 g rounds
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 n the competent
Court for prosecution and trial.
(d) in respect of of fences 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 shall 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 purpose 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 exercised 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 fai ls 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.
Liaison with
Advocate General 9. The Prosecutor General shall 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.
Powers of A
Public
Prosecutor 10. 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 aft er
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 Pub lic 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 impris onment 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 Angust 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 u nder any 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 to 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 Rules, 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 officers
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 sub- section
(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 inspectors 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 of Police. The District in which Prosecuting Inspector is stationed
Every prosecuting Sub-
Inspector of police stationed at the headquarter of a district. The District at the headquarters of which the prosecuting sub- Inspector
is stationed.
Every Prosecuting Sub-Inspector of police stationed at the headquarters of a sub -
division The sub- Division at the
headquarters of which the 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 ame ndment in Section 173, Cr.P.C. by Act, XXV of 1992, the
Prosecuting Sub- Inspectors and Prosecuting Inspectors continued 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 inves tigation is not completed within a period of fourteen days
from the date of recording 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 Magistra te 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 sub- Section (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 period (fourteen days) forward a challan/indictment -papers to the magistrate through the
public prosecutor (emphasis provided). Thus under Volume -III. Chapter XXVII, Rule 4(2) of the
Police Rules, 1934, all Prosecuting Inspectors and Prosecuting Sub- Inspectors 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 qualification 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 Pub lic Prosecutor.
In general dictionary meanings, a ‘Prosecutor’ is the government lawyer who 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 th e 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 power s, 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. I t will be against the scheme of law and
will offend the legitimate right of an individual 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 t o contest for the office, which requires the experience of Public
Prosecutors.
Thus, in the light of aforesaid no cavil is left to hold that Respondent 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 District 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 tha t 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 District 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 Attorney 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 results
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 comm ittee
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 a ppointed 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/experien ce 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
whenev er aspirant candidates cannot qualify the competitive test/examination, they/he/she as last
resort, try/tries to level baseless allegations against the recruiting agency/interviewing committee. This practice on the part of a practicing lawyer is highly con demnable 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 th e 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 con tention 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 petitioner has failed to substantiate his contention through cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence. Therefore, for these added reasons the petition being ba seless, frivolous and misconceived is
dismissed accordingly.
(W.I.B.) Petition dismissedThis 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.