ISLAMABAD, April 13: The National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) has proposed to give immunity to police officers from prosecution and civil suits for their acts under the draft Police Ordinance 2002 in spite of the objections of the provincial governments and federal ministries, documents obtained by Dawn reveal.

Sources said the Sindh government objected to section 173 of the ordinance which makes the filing of a complaint against a police officer an impossibility and fraught with grave consequences for the complainant if the complaint could not be proved right on investigation by another police officer.

Section 173, sources said, prescribes penalty for “false complaint” against a police officer.

“Whoever files a complaint against which on inquiry by the Police Complaint Authority proves to be false, frivolous or vexatious, shall be punished on conviction with imprisonment for one year or with fine which may extend to Rs50,000 or both.”

The next section of the ordinance, section 174, makes the simple act of filing a complaint against a police official, which if found false by the investigating officers of the police itself, as cognizable offence empowering the police to arrest the complainant without a warrant.

According to sources, the Sindh government recommended deletion of the provision from the ordinance. However, the NRB rejected the objection of the Sindh government.

Explaining the pitfalls of having the said provision in the ordinance, the interior ministry also sent its objections to the NRB.

The interior ministry, documents show, called for revision of the provision on the grounds that making the offence cognizable would effectively close the avenue of filing complaints against police officials.

Rejecting the objections of the Sindh government and the interior ministry on the issue, the NRB said the provisions are specific to the actions of the Police Complaints Authority. Moreover, the NRB further said, section 182 of the PPC has become redundant as it is non-cognizable.

The interior ministry suggested the offence should remain non-cognizable. The competent courts of law should take cognizance of the complaints if filed under the authority of the concerned Police Complaints Authority, the interior ministry recommended.

Sources said the NRB has further proposed that the Police Complaints Authority may appoint a police officer who is equal or senior in rank to the officer complained against as an inquiry officer and supervise the inquiry proceedings.

The NRB, sources said, refused to incorporate the objections of Punjab and Sindh on section 193 which prescribe a time limit for institution of criminal proceedings against a police officer in respect of acts done under colour of duty.

The proposed section provides that in case of an alleged offence by a police officer, or wrong alleged to have been done by him, or by any act done under colour of duty or in exercise of such duty or authority of this ordinance or when it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained, or shall be dismissed, if instituted after more than six months after the date of the action complained of.

Objecting to the provision, the Sindh government demanded deletion of the said section. The Punjab government, also recommending deletion, said there should be no time limit on criminality.

The NRB, rejecting the objections, said, “The section pertains to the acts under colour of duty and exercise of legal authority. This section does not apply to criminal acts.”

However, when contacted, sources in the law ministry said the mere use of the term prosecution implied that the section deals with criminal cases as well.

The NRB, vide section 190 of the final draft of the ordinance, has laid down that a police officer would not be liable to any penalty or payment of damages on account of acts done in “good faith” in pursuance of duty.

“No police officer shall be liable to any penalty or to payment of damages on account of an act done in good faith in pursuance or intended pursuance of any duty imposed or any authority conferred on him by any provision of this ordinance or any other law for the time being in force or any rule, order or direction made or given therein.”

Legal experts said a similar provision providing cover to the government officials for their acts of omission and commission justified on the plea of good faith existed in the colonial laws. However, even the colonial Police Act did not give such immunity to police officials which has the danger for justifying even the extra-judicial killings, albeit in good faith and in public interest, a lawyer said.