IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan 
 
 
 
Civil Petition No.2420 of 2015 
(Against the judgment dated 24.06.2015 passed by the Peshawar 
High Court Peshawar in W.P. No.2052/2008) 
 
 
 
Ikram Ullah Khan Yousafzai, Excise & Taxation 
Officer, Peshawar and others 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
Dr. Rizwan Ullah & others 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Syed Hammad Ali Shah, ASC 
 
 
 
 
For Respondent Nos.1-2: 
Mr. Abdul Samad Khan, Sr.ASC 
Muhammad Arif, SI 
 
Date of Hearing: 
10.02.2022. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.:- Ikram Ullah Khan 
Yousafzai, Sahibzada Daud Jan and Syed Naveed Jamal, petitioners 
herein, were, respectively, posted as Excise & Taxation Officer, 
Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer and Inspector Excise & Taxation 
at Peshawar. Dr. Rizwan Ullah, respondent, a medical officer, is an 
assessee of property tax relating to 132 shops located within the 
remit of Excise & Taxation Office Peshawar, allegedly in default; the 
assessed amount was Rs.182,365/- seemingly till the assessment 
year 2008 and it was for the recovery of said amount that the 
petitioners while executing a non-bailable warrant of arrest 
purportedly issued by the competent authority took him in custody 
on 16.6.2008 at 10:30 a.m. while he was present at Services 
Hospital. It is alleged that the respondent was not in default and he 
asked the raiding party to allow him an opportunity to clarify his 
Civil Petition No.2420 of 2015                                                                 -2-                                                                    
 
position, however, he was meted out a treatment rude and uncalled 
for whereafter forcibly shifted to the Excise & Taxation Office; he was 
kept in wrongful confinement till 5:00 p.m. when some advocates got 
him released. It is in this backdrop that the respondent approached 
Station House Officer Bhana Marree Peshawar for registration of a 
criminal case against the excise officials and upon refusal filed a 
petition under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, 
declined by a Justice of Peace vide order dated 10.11.2008;  
a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Peshawar High Court Peshawar 
vide impugned order dated 24.6.2015 directed registration of a 
criminal case, vires whereof, are being assailed through the present 
petition.  
 
The case came up for hearing on 14.10.2015 when after 
issuance of notice, the apprehended arrest of the officials was 
ordered to be held in abeyance followed by order dated 6.11.2015 
maintaining “a meantime status quo”.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there 
was no occasion for the learned High Court to issue the impugned 
direction inasmuch as the State functionaries tasked with the 
collection of public revenue were executing a command of law issued 
by the competent authority and as such respondent’s arrest was an 
action taken under due process of law, admittedly interrupted by 
some lawyers through gross interference therewith. It is next argued 
that execution of warrant was in pursuance of an order within the 
contemplation of section 78 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and as 
such was covered by the statutory immunity under general 
exceptions enumerated Chapter-IV thereof; it is next argued that till 
date the respondent has not paid a single penny and, thus, 
interference by this Court would be most called for both in order to 
ensure realization of defaulted amount as well as restoration of 
bureaucratic independence and efficiency. The learned counsel for 
the respondent while defending the impugned direction argued that 
the petitioners with intentions, sinister and oblique, in gross abuse 
of official authority, hounded the respondent, practitioner of a most 
noble profession, while he was performing his official duties and, 
thus, committed a series of cognizable offences that statutorily 
required registration of a criminal case inasmuch as no one is above 
Civil Petition No.2420 of 2015                                                                 -3-                                                                    
 
the law and the Constitution guarantees dignity of man; he has 
vehemently denied any default in payment of property tax.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
State authority is a sacred trust; it vests in its 
functionaries to accomplish purposes designated by law and no 
doubt while exercising such authority within remit thereof, the 
functionaries must act in a manner most benign with a degree of 
restraint, expedient to avoid transgression. At the same time, a 
reasonable freedom for the functionaries is most essential to 
effectively perform the duties they are tasked with. Any obstruction 
with the performance of State business is interference with the writ 
thereof 
and 
cannot 
be 
countenanced 
without 
grievously 
undermining its authority. Independence is not sole prerogative or 
attribute of any particular limb of the State as within the defined 
limits of law, each department, must be sovereign to effectively 
ensure its functionality so as to achieve statutory purpose, there 
being  no sword of demolces hanging over the head. It is even more 
important for those who are assigned with the responsibility of 
enforcement of law or for collection of State revenue and, thus, while 
there 
must 
be 
an 
unblinking 
judicial 
vigil 
over 
alleged 
transgressions, the Court must simultaneously give effect to 
statutory presumption attached to official acts as contemplated by 
Article 129 (e) of the Qanun-i-Shahdat Order, 1984 as well as Article 
150 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.    
Diametrically different positions, notwithstanding, what is 
evident on the record is issuance of multiple notices for the recovery 
of outstanding assessment of property tax, predating the incident;  
a warrant issued by an Assistant Collector 1st Class, though 
disputed as fake is, nonetheless, mainstay of the petitioners’ case 
who in their official capacity were tasked to collect the assessed 
amount and, thus, prima facie, within the bounds of law to execute 
the impugned warrant; their rowdy behavior and inappropriate 
selection of time and venue for the execution of the warrant as 
alleged by the respondent though despicable, nonetheless, by itself 
does not expose them to criminal consequences. There is nothing on 
the record to view the purported non-bailable warrant as a fake 
instrument; similarly, it is not open for the respondent to 
unilaterally dispute the vires of impugned assessment, reportedly 
Civil Petition No.2420 of 2015                                                                 -4-                                                                    
 
stalled till date. We are also at loss to understand under what 
authority of law, the rescuing team that included some lawyers took 
away the respondent from custody apparently sanctioned by law,  
a criminal offence in itself. These are the issues that hinged upon 
factual controversies and as such could not have been attended in 
exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction in the face of multiple 
alternate statutory remedies available to the respondent.  
 
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is converted into appeal 
and allowed; impugned direction/order dated 24.06.2015 is set 
aside, however, the respondent is certainly at liberty to dispute the 
vires of impugned assessment before the competent forum in 
accordance with law as well as to avail alternate remedy of private 
complaint to be attended on its own merits, if so advised.  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
10th February, 2022 
Azmat/- 
