LAHORE, June 1: A full bench of the Lahore High Court pronounced here on Wednesday that district and sessions judges, in their capacity as ex-officio justices of peace, could in no manner assume the role of police as they were supposed to assist law-enforcement agencies in maintaining peace in society.

Comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Husain Chaudhry, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Justice Sheikh Abdur Rashid, the bench held in a judgment that justices of peace, appointed through an amendment to the CrPC, were not supposed to act like courts as their role was administrative and ministerial in nature.

The court observed that ordering the transfer of investigation in criminal cases was beyond the jurisdiction of justices of peace while hearing private complaints against police as provided by section 22-A(6) of the CrPC and the Police Order, .

The justices of peace, according to the 83-page judgment, had been assigned the duty of watching the watchmen (police) and this was exactly the nature of duty that the legislature had entrusted upon them in entertaining complaints against the police conduct. For this a whole procedure had been given by different laws and issuing appropriate directions to police in achieving the objective was one of them.

The court set aside the orders of additional district and sessions judges of Toba Tek Singh, Hafizabad and Lahore, accepting four writ petitions moved by Khizer Hayat, Muhammad Sajid Pervez, Abdul Hafeez Mughal and Bilal Ahmad through which they had challenged the AD&SJs decision to transfer police investigation against them.

The court ruled that while performing the duty as justice of peace, a district and sessions judge or an additional district and sessions judge did not function as a court, but only as an administrator.

It held that an ex-officio justice of peace was competent to issue instructions to police to register a case and direct senior policemen to move against a delinquent official. He was to perform the role of a facilitator and serve as a bridge between a private complainant and police to ensure that law-abiding citizens were not intimidated by police.

“He or she has to remain within the confines of article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002,” the court held.

The court said a two-fold remedy was available to justices of peace in cases of non-compliance of orders by police. First, he could issue directions to the police authorities to register a criminal case against a delinquent official. Second, he could issue similar instructions to the relevant Public Safety and Police Complaint Commission to take appropriate action against the official.

The private complainant also had the opportunity to approach the high court to seek an appropriate writ against the defaulting police official under article 199 of the Constitution.

The LHC’s full bench spelled out a 16-point guideline for the facility of justices of peace. In the first place, these guidelines reminded them that they did not have a judicial jurisdiction, but they had administrative job.

It further said that they should refrain from interfering in police functioning and they could not arrogate to themselves the power for actual redress of grievances.

The guidelines said any order or direction was to be issued to police and not to any private party because articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution envisaged equal treatment of all citizens.

As for cases of harassment, the court held that if such a complaint did not have complete information about the incident, it needed to be outrightly dismissed. In cases where non-registration of FIR was complained, the justices of peace should invite comments by the police station concerned. If the SHO failed to offer satisfactory reply, he or she could order registration of FIR on the basis of information provided by the complainant.

According to the judgment, if the complaint was about improper investigation, the justice of peace should refrain from hearing it because such grievances could be redressed by the area magistrate. If the complaint was about police failure in recording the version of the accused party, a report could be called for the explanation of the investigation officer and in case the accusation was established, the justice of peace could direct the official or the SP (investigation) to do the needful.

As for a complaint that the police were not arresting an accused, the LHC verdict said justices of peace should not force the arrest and follow the procedure as in case of recording the accused party’s version.

About the transfer of criminal investigation, the judgment said the justice of peace could not step into police shoes. Investigation and its transfer was the police job and if it was not done properly, the procedure given in the Police Order had to be activated.

A justice of peace was also not competent to assume an appellate, revision or supervisory authority.