Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 295A

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 196B,537,159 ,173(3),4(f),4(n),161

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 8,9

Law: Police Act (V of 1861)

Section: 154,155,44

Law: Police Order (22 of 2002)

Section: 167

ORDER SHEET
 

Through this writ petition Muhammad Ahsan, petitioner/accused seeks quashing of FIR No.3232, dated 07.12.2023 registered under section 295A PPC at police station Aroop, District Gujranwala.
2.    Briefly stated allegation as per impugned FIR are that Chaudhary Sagheer Abbas Virk, respondent No.4/complainant submitted an application to the concerned police for registration of FIR with the allegation that on 26.11.2023 at 03:00 p.m. petitioner/accused issued “Fatwa” wherein he declared followers of Shia sect as non-Muslim with some more declarations uncalled for and thereby insulted their religious belief which have wounded the religious feelings of such community
3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that offence under Section 295A PPC is non-cognizable, and allegations cannot be used for prosecution until Provincial government files a complaint through a special procedure provided under section 196 Cr.P.C; therefore, registration of FIR on the application of private individual which offends the legal process is a nullity, liable to be quashed. In this respect he has placed reliance on different reported judgments; some of which are referred as under;
“ALI RAZA and another Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another” (PLD 2017 Islamabad 64); “ATTA MUHAMMAD DESHANI Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, HARIPUR and 2 others” (2019 P Cr. L J 275);
“SABZ ALI KHAN and 2 others Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KPK and 3 others” (2016 YLR 1279); “MAKHDOOM JAVED HASHMI Versus THE STATE” (2010 P Cr. L J 1809); “Dr. ABDUL JABBAR KHATTAK
and another Versus THE STATE” (1990 P Cr. LJ 1708); “MOIN ALAM Versus THE STATE” (1993 P Cr.L J 1913); “MAJOR-GENERAL FAZAL-I-RAZIQ. CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE versus Ch. RIAZ AHMAD AND ANOTHER” (1978
PLD Lahore 1082; “MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and others versus THE STATE” (1988 P Cr. LJ 992); “QAISAR RAZA versus THE STATE” (1979 P Cr. L J 758); “NAVEED AHMAD
KHAN, ADVOCATE and 6 others Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RENALA KHURD and another” (1994 P Cr. LJ 2381); “MUHAMMAD AKRAM versus THE STATE” (PLD
2001 Karachi 112); “Haji TOOTI BASHAR Versus THE STATE” (1993 P Cr. L J 1448); “MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus THE STATE” (1991 MLD 1172); “Syed NAWAZ
HUSSAIN and others Versus The STATE and others” (2014 P Cr. L J 1256)
4.    On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant while relying on cases reported as “SHAFIQ AHMAD versus THE STATE” (PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lahore 851); “AZIM KHAN AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE” (1970 Cr. L J 77); “MUHAMMAD ASLAM versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER” (1980 P Cr. L J 742); “MUHAMMAD versus THE STATE” (1989 P Cr. L J 834); and “SHABBIR HUSSAIN versus
THE STATE” (2011 P Cr. L J 1631), states that if any irregularity has been committed by the police, complainant cannot be held responsible; therefore, it can be rectified through further process. He further submits that penal provision mentioned in FIR does not decide its fate, rather contents be given preference which do disclose commission of an offence under section 8/9 of Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, for addition of which he had already filed an application before SP investigation concerned.

5.    On the divergent contentions of both the parties it was desirable for the Court to look into the question of law with deep insight. By virtue of interim order, dated 15.11.2024 passed by this Court in connected Crl. Misc. No. 40979-B of 2024, it was observed that though as per criminal procedure, an investigation starts only after registration of FIR or with the permission of Magistrate yet a regime of preliminary investigation has been introduced in Section 196B Cr.P.C., for offences mentioned in section 196 of Cr.P.C., which includes section 295A PPC, probably for collection of material in order to obtain sanction for prosecution from Federal or provincial government; therefore, if the FIR stands registered as has been done in this case, would it be a nullity, or mere an irregularity which can be cured through process of law. Thus, Prosecutor- General Punjab was directed to assist the Court on this question of law whereas Ms. Nuzhat Bashir, Deputy Prosecutor-General and M/s. Burhan Moazzam Malik and Mian Tabassum Ali, Advocates were appointed as amici curiae for legal opinion in this case.
6.    Learned Prosecutor-General Punjab entered appearance and stated that offence is non-cognizable, therefore, registration of FIR in this case is nullity and liable to be quashed; whereas Mr. Burhan Moazzam Malik, learned amicus curiae while agreeing with opinion of learned Prosecutor-General stated that section 196B added in Cr.P.C., in year 1923 empowers officer in charge of investigation in the district to direct an inspector to conduct preliminary investigation for offences listed in section 196 Cr.P.C., but such section stands in contrast to dicta laid down by Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as “SHAHNAZ BEGUM versus THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF SIND AND BALUCHISTAN AND ANOTHER”
(PLD 1971 Supreme Court 677), which says that there is no concept of preliminary investigation in law nor it has been defined in Cr.P.C., therefore, it cannot take the status of a full- fledged investigation; however, stated that in this case even preliminary  investigation  was  not  conducted,  therefore,investigation in this case after registration of FIR under section 295A PPC (non-cognizable offence) cannot be given protection. Ms. Nuzhat Bashir, Deputy Prosecutor-General, learned amicus curiae while submitting her written submissions, opened the arguments that though FIR is nullity but for entering into investigation FIR is not a condition precedent, therefore, investigation so far conducted can be given protection under the shield of section 537 of Cr.P.C. She has placed her reliance in this respect on cases reported as “MUHAMMAD  BASHIR  Versus  STATION  HOUSE  OFFICER,
OKARA CANTT. and others” (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 539), “ALTAF HUSSAIN versus ABDUL SAMAD and 3 others” (2000 SCMR 1945) and a case from Indian jurisdiction reported as “Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P. & Ors” (AIR 2014 Supreme Court 187). She was of the view that investigation so far conducted shall be deemed regularized under section 196B Cr.P.C., or can be legalized by involving the institution of Magistrate as ordained under section 155 of Cr.P.C. On divergent contentions, this Court by virtue of order, dated 27.11.2024, passed in connected Crl. Misc. No. 40979-B of 2024 observed as under:
“The divergent stances question the legal process for registration of FIR. The word ‘FIR’ (First information Report) is not the creation of section 154 or 155 of Cr.P.C. rather used for the first time in Chapter XXIV of Police Rules 1934. First information with respect to commission of an offence is sometimes received by the police from a passersby, medical attendant or person from the locality but on their information, FIR is not registered in our system; therefore, without looking at Police Rules, scheme of registration of case under Cr.P.C., is apparently straight. Every information received by Station House Officer shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf and both sections 154 & 155 probably talk about one book as ordained under Section 44 of Police Act 1861 and Article 167 of Police Order 2002, and then investigation in cognizable offence is started by the police officer at his own and in non-cognizable offence with the permission of Magistrate. In both type of offences when the formal process is initiated police enter into realm of section 157 Cr.P.C., and either decline to investigate or continue on investigation, ensued by a report either under section 157 or section 173 of Cr.P.C. to be submitted before the Magistrate, who is authorized to order for an inquiry or investigation under section 159 Cr.P.C. or after taking cognizance on report under section 173 Cr.P.C. either commences the trial or send it for trial to Court of Session, or can cancel the case under section 173(3) of Cr.P.C.
Cognizable & non-cognizable offences are known as arrestable & non-arrestable offence in our system as per section 4(f) & 4(n) of Cr.P.C. Apparently entering the information in a register of FIR is not necessary for investigation or trial but in our system much energy is consumed to get the information entered in register of FIR for which an institution of ex-officio Justice of the Peace was also established whose orders for and against are further challenged before the High Courts and Supreme Court and in this way status of information is converted into legally drafted complaint which is not the spirit of section 154 or 155 of Cr.P.C. because case is to be developed through recording of statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. and other processes. It has further been experienced that later for cancellation of such FIR, institution of Magistrate is also entangled whose orders for and against are further assailed before the higher forums. Such regime takes a considerable span of time even to initiate the first criminal process which in other jurisdictions is just a phone call away.”
Thus, to resolve the controversy, following questions were framed for amici curiae: -
1.    For registration of cases, Section 154 & 155 of Cr.P.C. mandate that information of offence shall be entered in a book to be kept as prescribed by the Provincial Government; had it ever been prescribed.?
2.    Whether there are different books for cognizable & non- cognizable cases.?
3.    If prescribed book is the ‘register of FIR’ for cognizable offence and daily diary/station diary for non-cognizable offence, then both being creation of Police Rules can surpass the provisions of Cr.P.C.?
4.    When there are no direct provisions to regulate the process in Cr.P.C., can it be controlled by indirect subordinate legislation in the form of Police Rules 1934 made under Police Act 1861 (Now Police Order 2002).?
5.    Aren’t Police Rules for superintendence and administration of Police Department which deal with internal and departmental mechanism to put the things in order and they cannot add anything or supply omissions in Cr.P.C.?”
Matter was related to police functions, therefore, Mr. Kamran Adil, DIG/City Police Officer, Faisalabad was also appointed as amicus curiae.
7.    Mr. Burhan Moazzam Malik along with Mian Tabassum Ali Advocates (learned amici curiae) in order to answer the above queries of the Court submits that there are two books for recording information of crime by the police; section 154 & 155 Cr.P.C., talk about entering of information with respect to cognizable & non-cognizable offences in separate books which cannot be the same. He further submits that it is undesirable to enter substance of information in cognizable cases first in the station diary and then in register of FIR, rather officer in charge of police station has no other option except to record the information directly in the register of FIR. In support of his contentions, he has mainly relied on “Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors.” (AIR 2014 Supreme Court 187). According to him, entering of information for cognizable and non-cognizable offences has elaborately been discussed in the Indian jurisdiction through the said judgment which is parametria to the provisions of law available in Pakistan. He further submits that in year 1861 not only Police Act was enacted but first version of Code of Criminal Procedure 1861 as well. Section 44 of Police Act deals with station/general diary to be kept by the officer in charge of police station for recording of information referred in such section. According to section 139 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1861, every complaint or information preferred to an officer in charge of a Police Station shall be reduced to writing and the substance thereof shall be entered in a diary to be kept by such officer in such form as shall be prescribed by the Local Government. In second version of Code of Criminal Procedure 1872, section 139 was swapped with section 112 which mentioned that every complaint preferred to an officer in charge of a police-station shall be reduced into writing, and shall be signed, sealed, or marked by the person making it; and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in the form prescribed by the Local Government. The two versions carry different features; in earlier version, section
139  Cr.P.C.  talks  about  entering  of  “information  and complaints” in a diary; whereas second version of Code pursuant to Section 112 talks about entering of “complaint” only and that too not in diary but in a book. Similarly, third version of Code of Criminal Procedure 1882 talks about entering of only “information” in a book, and same is the position in section 154 of latest version of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Learned amicus curiae stated that word “information” has not been qualified with “credible” or “reasonable” which shows intention of legislature that every information wrong may be, must be entered in a book/register of FIR if it discloses commission of a cognizable offence. He, however, could not explain that since promulgation of Police Act 1861 up to framing of Police Rules in the year 1934 what format was being used for the purpose of registration of FIR; whether information was being entered in police station daily diary maintained under section 44 of Police Act 1861 or any other book prescribed by the Local Government or the Provincial Government under section 154 of Cr.P.C. All other amici curiae also could not explain arrangement of registration of FIR in such period. However, all have consensus that after framing of Police Rules 1934 now FIR is registered on the format prescribed under Rule-24.5(1) Police Rules 1934. Mr. Burhan Moazzam, learned amicus curiae, however, in the last submission stated that system requires that information first be recorded in daily diary and then in register of FIR.
8.    Mr. Kamran Adil, DIG, learned amicus curiae states that our system is victim centric and rights of the accused are not protected, therefore, any information received to the police is registered as FIR without examining the sensitivity of the matter. System is loaded with frivolous applications and there is no mechanism to filter them at early stage. Once the FIR is registered, it takes years to get it cancelled if the information is found false. While arguing above point, he has referred the crime data of Pakistan since 1947 to date and then a bifurcation of all the provinces from year 2019 to 2023 which is as under: -
He was of the view that crime data index shows that despite increase in population, crime rate in the country raised by three times since independence, and the bifurcation of last five years shows that most of the crime was reported in Province of the Punjab. He submits that data shows only number of cases registered and not the actual reporting and Punjab leads the other provinces for honouring the complaints for registration of FIRs. He while criticizing other amici curiae said that much talk and emphasis is on the textual interpretation and no logical interpretation of section 154 of Cr.P.C., is being tabled before this Court. He stated that pursuant to judgment reported as “INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHERS versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD WARRAICH AND OTHERS”
(PLD 1985 Supreme Court 159) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has given protection to Police Rules though in service matters but it would be considered as a whole a sacrosanct document duly supported with legislative backing. According to him Inspector General of Police was authorized under section 12 of the Police Act 1861 to make rules consistent with the Act. However, Rules are subservient to the Cr.P.C. which cannot surpass or override it but are used as a supplement to support Cr.P.C.; therefore, would well be read while interpreting section 154 Cr.P.C. He further states that there is a time lag between entering of information and making of mind as to the commission of a cognizable offence, which requires a preliminary inquiry because police station is not a post office where FIR be reciprocated to an application filed on the whims and wishes of informant, rather a statutory duty cast upon the officer in charge of police station to apply his mind so as to save the innocent persons from sufferings and curtailment of liberties if the FIR stood registered. He urged that this area also requires consideration by this Court and it is the high time for updated interpretation of relevant laws and rules as held by Supreme Court of Pakistan in “MEERA SHAFI Versus ALI ZAFAR” (PLD 2023 Supreme Court 211) and by High Court in Crl. Misc. 40397/24 titled “Rai Muhammad Aslam Vs The State etc.” (2024 LHC 4993) (LHC website). He has further informed that similar kind of legislation is pending consideration before the Federal Cabinet.
9.    Ms. Nuzhat Bashir, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General as amicus curiae entered appearance by filing her written submissions, and while addressing the questions stated that in Pakistan, the Police Rules 1934, issued under the Police Act of 1861 (Now Police Order 2002), serve as a procedural framework for registering cases. Rule 22.47 of the Police Rules 1934 specifies the maintenance of First Information Report Register on Form 24.5(1) for entering information under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Similarly, for non-cognizable cases under Section 155 Cr.P.C., the Daily Diary Register (Roznamcha) is maintained under Rule 22.48 of Police Rules 1934. However, Provincial Governments have not consistently updated these rules or issued specific additional notifications prescribing the "book" mentioned in Cr.P.C. Instead, the colonial-era framework remains the primary guideline. The procedural continuity of these rules has been accepted without question, though some provinces like Punjab and Sindh have digitized the FIR process via initiatives like the Police Record Management Information System (PRMIS).
She states that in India, similar provisions exist under section 154 and section 155 Cr.P.C., and corresponding rules are found in the “Police Regulations” of various States. For instance, States like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu have issued rules prescribing an FIR Register for cognizable cases and a General Diary (GD) for non-cognizable cases. The Indian Police Act 1861 along with State specific Police Manuals and Government Orders, addresses the procedural requirements for the "book" mentioned in the Cr.P.C. Notably, after the Indian Supreme Court's judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh of year 2013 reported in year 2014, emphasis was placed on strict adherence to the registration of FIRs under Section 154 Cr.P.C., prompting states to revise or reaffirm their rules.
She words that the Police Rules 1934 do not "surpass" the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure; rather, it complements and implements them within the framework allowed by law. However, the question about their authority and the relationship with the Cr.P.C., requires understanding of hierarchy of laws and delegated legislation. Hierarchy of Laws in both Pakistan and India explains that the Cr.P.C., is a central statute enacted by the legislature; it provides the primary framework for criminal procedure, and the Police Rules are subordinate or delegated legislation. They derive their authority from statutes like the Police Act 1861 (now Police Order 2002) and are meant to operationalize and regulate police conduct, including the procedures under Cr.P.C. Subordinate legislation, such as the Police Rules, cannot conflict with or override the provisions of the Cr.P.C. If there is a conflict, the provisions of the Cr.P.C. will prevail because it is the higher law. She while referring para-10 of case reported as “MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, OKARA CANTT and others” (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 539), states that First Information Report (F.I.R.) was not an expression of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 but was in fact the name given to the "Information" mentioned in section 154 of the Cr.P.C., by Chapter XXIV of the Police Rules of 1934. Further states that since the Police Rules prescribe these registers to operationalize the provisions of the Cr.P.C., they do not conflict with it. Rather, they provide the procedural clarity that the Cr.P.C. itself leaves to the Provincial/State Governments. Police Rules cannot surpass or override the Cr.P.C., but they can supplement it, provided they remain within the scope of the enabling legislation e.g., the Police Act 1861 (now Police Order 2002) and do not contravene the provisions of the Cr.P.C. In this case, the Cr.P.C. mandates maintaining a record of information in a "book" without detailing its format or specifics, the Police Rules fill in the procedural gap by prescribing the FIR register and daily diary as the appropriate "books." This prescription does not contradict the Cr.P.C.; instead, it supports its implementation.
Further passionate response was outlined by her that where the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) does not directly regulate a process, it can be supplemented or controlled by subordinate legislation, such as the Police Rules 1934 provided these rules adhere to the principles like, legitimacy of Subordinate Legislation. Such rules function as delegated legislation, deriving their authority from the parent statute (Police Act/Order) and serve to operationalize both the Act and related provisions of the Cr.P.C. The Police Order 2002, explicitly allows the Provincial Governments to make rules regulating police functions. Article 186 of the Police Order 2002, provides for the continuity of the rules made under the Police Act 1861, unless explicitly repealed or amended. Hence, the Police Rules 1934 continue to apply where consistent with the Police Order and Cr.P.C. Section 154 Cr.P.C., mandates maintaining a "book" for recording of FIRs but does not specify the  format  or  procedural  details.  The  Police  Rules  1934
prescribe the format of FIR Register [24.5(1)]. Section 172 Cr.P.C. requires the investigating officer to maintain a Case Diary but leaves the specifics to subordinate legislation. The Police Rules detail the structure and use of the case diary, define the chain of command and responsibilities in the investigation process, procedural details for reporting and managing crime statistics. The rules can supplement procedural gaps left by the Cr.P.C., but cannot introduce substantive law, as this requires legislative authority. This delegation is lawful because the Cr.P.C., permits Provincial Governments to prescribe procedural specifics. Courts in both Pakistan and India have upheld the role of subordinate legislation like the Police Rules in supplementing procedural aspects of criminal law, as long as they do not contradict higher laws. While referring para-26 of “MUHAMMAD  BASHIR  Versus  STATION  HOUSE  OFFICER,
OKARA CANTT and others” (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 539), states that rules are always subordinate to the statutory provisions and no rule can permit what was not allowed by a statutory provision.
She lastly tabled the submissions that the Police Rules 1934 were primarily framed to regulate the superintendence and administration of the police department. However, the relationship between the Police Rules and the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is nuanced, as the rules often intersect with procedural requirements under the Cr.P.C. The primary purpose of the Police Rules is to govern the internal and administrative mechanisms of the police department (e.g., hierarchy, discipline, and resource allocation). These regulate how the police carry out their duties, including investigation, maintenance of records, and interaction with the judicial process. While the Police Rules primarily deal with administrative mechanisms, they often serve as a procedural supplement to the Cr.P.C., in areas where the latter is silent or delegates responsibility as highlighted above. However, Police Rules cannot legislate or supply omissions in the Cr.P.C. that involve substantive law or fundamental procedural safeguards.
10.    Dr. Muhammad Usman, learned Deputy-Prosecutor General appeared in representation of Prosecutor-General Punjab and submitted response of Prosecutor-General in black and white which carry expression that there are two separate books; Register of FIR is for section 154 and Station diary register is for section 155 and they were legally prescribed through Police Rules. Police Rules cannot surpass or override the provisions of Cr.P.C rather supplement it and are not in conflict with the Cr.P.C. In the report of Prosecutor-General, Rules 24.1, 24.2, 24.3, 24.4 & 24.5 of Police Rules 1934 were cited in support of queries of this Court. Case reported as “MUHAMMAD  BASHIR  Versus  STATION  HOUSE  OFFICER,
OKARA CANTT and others” (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 539) was also cited with the submissions that no preliminary inquiry can be held before registration of FIR. However, in certain circumstances, with a limited scope inquiry held by the police shall not be illegal. In this respect he cited the cases reported as “FAISAL HAYAT Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/EX- OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE, ISLAMABAD (WEST) and 3 others” (2024 Y L R 1037). “GUL NAWAZ LONE ETC versus
S.H.O” (K.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 258). He says that Police Rules may fill procedural gaps where the Cr.P.C. is silent, they must remain within their legal limits and cannot supersede statutory provisions of Cr.P.C. Rules are subordinate and delegated legislation, deriving authority and legal cover from provisions of main statute and cannot override provisions of the Statute. Rules are meant to deal with details and can neither be a substitute for fundamentals of parent statute nor can add to them. Delegated legislation forms an important part of statutory law, which expounds and explains skeleton principles of parent statute in order to achieve purposes of such legislation. Reliance in this respect was placed on case reported as “COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE Versus COCA COLA PAKISTAN
LIMITED, LAHORE” (2022 PTD 1400). He stated that Police Act 1861 and Rules made thereunder even before enactment of present version of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has duly been given protection under section 3(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because it states that in every enactment passed before this Code comes into force in which reference is made to, or to any Chapter or section of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act XXV of 1861 or Act X Of 1872, or Act X of 1882, or to any other enactment repealed, such, reference so far as may be practicable be taken to be made to this Code or to its corresponding chapter or section.
11.    Proponents were heard at length who have given valuable input on the subject as highlighted above. It was the consensus of all the amici curiae that book mentioned in section 154 of Cr.P.C., is the register of FIR whereas under section 155 of Cr.P.C., is the Police Station daily diary. It was a further consensus that Police Rules being subordinate legislation is a legal document which derive their authority under Police Act 1861 (Now Police Order 2002), they are not in conflict with Cr.P.C., nor they can surpass or over ride it, rather supplement, complement or implement the provisions of Cr.P.C., and rules making authority vested in Government has rightly been responded through Police Rules and it is not an intrusion in to provisions of Cr.P.C., because for prescribing book for section 154 & 155 there is no rule making power in Cr.P.C. It was also the consensus that though Police Rules primarily deal with administrative mechanisms yet they often serve as a procedural supplement to the Cr.P.C., in areas where the latter is silent or delegates responsibility as highlighted above. Thus, these rules would help understand the legal concept of Section 154 & 155 of Cr.P.C.
12.    In order to ascertain the nature of books mentioned in sections 154 & 155 of Cr.P.C., it is essential to track the legislative history of registration of FIR in the light of provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Before I should talk about Code of Criminal Procedure, it is essential to note that General Code for Crimes was drafted on the recommendations of the first Law Commission of India established in 1834 under the Charter Act of 1833, under the chairmanship of Thomas Babington Macaulay, a British historian, poet, and Whig politician, who served as the Secretary at War between 1839 and 1841, and a the Paymaster General between 1846 and 1848. He also played a substantial role in determining India's education policy. Title of such Code was ‘Indian Penal Code’ enacted and assented by Governor-General on 06th October, 1860, about 10 months after the death of Thomas Babington Macaulay. (28th December, 1859). It came into force in the sub-continent during the British Rule on 1st January, 1862. However, it did not apply automatically in the Princely States, which had their own Courts and legal systems until the 1940s.
13.    The word ‘police’ is derived from the Greek word ‘Polis’, which means a city. The Latin term ‘Politeia’, refers to the State or government’s condition. In Ancient India, Rig Veda and Atharva Veda identify specific types of crimes known to the Vedic people at the time. The security personnel were in place as far back as the Harrapan period. It is not exactly known what type of criminal justice system existed during the Vedic period, although the Mauryan period has many of the same traits. The Arthashastra of Kautilya (310 BC) is a work on the administration of justice. The Muslim rulers have also implemented the Islamic principles and dealt the non-Muslims as per their own law. The pious Caliph Hazarat Umar (R.A) appointed officials "Ahdath" (police officers) to maintain public order and overseeing market activities. This role evolved into a specialized institution known as "Hisbah" later. He also appointed Governors to different states to control law and order i.e Abu Hurairah (R.A.) at Bahrain, Amr ibn al-Aas (R.A.) at Egypt and Ubadah ibn al-Samit (R.A.) at Syria. Prior to emergence of British Rule, the system of policing in Mughal India was organized on the basis of land tenure. The public peace disturbers were apprehended through Zamindars and at village level this function was performed by the Village Headmen. Similarly, in large towns, this function was performed by Kotwals, performing duties of law enforcement, municipal administration and revenue collection. Violent organized crime was usually dealt with by the military. The British administration  introduced  Magistrates  with  Daroghas.  The modern police force came into existence in 19th century during the British period as a regular police force. The first police model was introduced by Sir Charles Napier in Sindh drawing inspiration from the Irish Constabulary, developed a separate and self-contained police organization for the province. However, the British Indian Government established a Police Commission in 1860 following the first war of the uprising in 1857. The Police Commission of 1860 recommended the abolition of the Military Arm of the Police. Upon the recommendations of the Commission, the Government of India submitted a bill which was passed into law as Police Act 1861 (Act V of 1861), the first codified central law. Section 12 of Police Act 1861 empowered the Inspector General to frame Rules for the administration of police force. The Police Act 1861 did not come into existence at once but was to be adopted by the States later on. Prior to the Punjab Police Rules 1934 State level Rules were framed at Bengal and United Provinces under the name of Police Regulations. In the case of “QUEEN-EMPRESS
V. ABDULHUSSAIN” (1887 ILR Cal 194) the Calcutta High Court observed the non-existence of rules which were to be framed under section 12 of the Police Act 1861. The partition of Bengal in year 1905 led to the preparation of the ‘Eastern Bengal and Assam Police Manual’ which was published between the years 1910 and 1912. In the meantime, the Bengal Police Manual has been revised and was published for the districts of West Bengal in 1911. With the amalgamation of the provinces in 1912, Mr. A. E. O’ Sullivan, Superintendent of Police, was placed on special duty in 1913 to amalgamate the Rules in two manuals and to revise and to amplify them where necessary and bring them up to date by the inclusion of all Police and Government Orders issued since the last publication was issued. After seven months’ work Mr. O’ Sullivan’s duty was taken over and completed by Mr. J. E. Armstrong, Superintendent of Police, which contained police order and government orders up to the date of September 1914. It was decided to call compilation as “Police Regulations, Bengal” on the analogy of “Army Regulations, India and of “Police Regulations, United Provinces”. These Regulations were of year 1915. Which remained on updating time to time.
14.    Police Act was promulgated on 22nd March, 1861 which introduced section 44 as regulator to record every information including commission of an offence in a general diary to be kept by officer in charge of police station. It is referred as under;
“44. It shall be the duty of every officer in charge of a police- station to keep a general diary in such form as shall from time to time, be prescribed by the Local Government and to record therein all complaints and charges preferred, the names of all persons arrested, the names of the complainants, the offences charged against them, the weapons or property that shall have been taken from their possession or otherwise, and the names of the witnesses who shall have been examined.”
The Magistrate of the district shall be at liberty to call for and inspect such diary.
(Later in year 1937 the word “Local Government” was replaced with “Provincial Government”)