Stereo.

H C J D A 38
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Writ Petition No.21032 of 2015

Mian Iftikhar Ahmad vs. D.S.P. Range Crime

and 2 others

Date of hearing. 15.7.2015

Petitioner by Mr. Munir Ahmad Bhatti,

Advocate

Respondent No.3 by Mr. Sarfraz Khan Gondal,

Advocate

State by Ch. Iftikhar Iqbal Ahmad,

Deputy Prosecutor General
Ghulam Mustafa DSP and
Afzal, ASI.
=======
Farrukh Gulzar Awan, J. Through this constitutional

petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of

Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has assailed the investigation

proceedings conducted by respondent No.1 in case FIR No.561 dated

6.12.2014 originally registered under Section 365/511 PPC at Police

Station Dinga District Gujrat.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that Shamoon Ayub

respondent No.3 got registered the aforesaid case at Police Station

Dinga District Gujrat with the allegation that 29.11.2014 at about

8:45 a.m. the complainant along with Muhammad Ali and Haji

Zahid were standing at Gujrat Road near Phatak when Mian Iftikhar

Hussain (petitioner) armed with Kalashnikov and Khalid Hussain

armed with Kalashnikov came there on a car and started abusing

Muhammad Ali. Mian Iftikhar Hussain gave sever beating with the
W.P. No.21032 of 2015 2

butt of his Kalashnikov to Muhammad Ali and forcibly boarded

Muhammad Ali on their car and went away. During investigation

offence under Section 365/511 was substituted with offence under

Section 342/34 PPC and offences under Sections 337-F(vi)/337-F(i)

PPC were added. After thorough investigation vide case diary No.56

dated 30.5.2015 Mian Iftikhar Hussain petitioner was found not

involved while Khalid Mehmood and Javed Akhtar were found

involved in this case and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was

submitted in the Court wherein the trial has commenced and the

learned trial Court, after framing of charge, has fixed the case for

recording of prosecution evidence.

3. During the pendency of said case, respondent

No.3/complainant submitted application for 2nd change of

investigation which was entrusted to SSP/RIB, Gujranwala vide

impugned order No.26453/R.RPO dated 22.6.2015 of the RPO

Gujranwala Region. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once

challan is submitted in the Court and the Court has taken the

cognizance of the matter, no new investigation can be ordered by the

police and such act of the police can come with certain verdict over

and above the learned Court, who is ceased with the matter; that

respondent No.3 is highly influential person, who has got managed

the 2nd change of investigation, which is in violative of the

provisions of Section 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002, therefore, the

impugned order for 2nd change of investigation be set aside. Relies

on case titled Qari Muhammad Rafique vs. Additional Inspector-

W.P. No.21032 of 2015 3

General Of Police (Inv.) Punjab and others (2014 SCMR 1499

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]).

5. On the other hand, learned A.A.G. assisted by the learned

counsel for respondent No.3 has opposed this petition and it is

contended that there is no bar to the reinvestigation of a criminal

case and the police is always at liberty to submit supplementary

Challan even after submission of the final report under Section 173

Cr.P.C. Relies on case titled Raja Khurshid Ahmad vs. Muhammad

Bilal and others (2014 SCMR 474 [Supreme Court of Pakistan]),

Bahadur Khan vs. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2006 SCMR

373 [Supreme Court of Pakistan]) AND Khalid Javed vs. Board

through Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Investigation), Lahore

and 5 others (PLD 2009 Lahore 101).

6. Report and parawise comments have also been received on

behalf of respondent No.1(Deputy Superintendent of Police)

Regional Investigation Branch, Gujranwala.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for respondent No.3, learned A.A.G. for the State and have

also gone through the record.

8. This case FIR No.561 was registered on 6.12.2014 under

Section 365/511 PPC at Police Station Dinga District Gujrat and

during first round of investigation, the nominated accused of the FIR

were found involved in this case and certain offences were added.

During second round of investigation, Mian Iftikhar Ahmad

petitioner was found not involved whereas Khalid Mehmood and

Javed Akhtar were found involved in this case and challan was sent
W.P. No.21032 of 2015 4

up to the Court for trial vide case diary No.56 dated 30.5.2015.

Thereafter, respondent No.3/complainant being dissatisfied from the

aforesaid two successive investigations, again moved for the change

of investigation whereupon the Regional Police Officer, Gujranwala

Region transferred the 2nd investigation of the case to SSP/RIB,

Gujranwala vide impugned order No.26453/R.RPO dated 22.6.2015.

9. Article 18-A of the Punjab Police Order (Amendment)

Ordinance 2013 (Ordinance II of 2013) deals with the subject which

is re-produced for ready reference:-

18A Transfer of investigation(1) Within seven working days of

the filing of an application, the Head of District Police may, after
obtaining opinion of the District Standing Board and for reasons to
be recorded in writing, transfer investigation of a case from the
investigation office to any other investigation officer or a team of
investigation officer or a rank equal to or higher than the rank of
previous investigation officer.
(2) If the Head of District Police has decided an
application for transfer of investigation, the Regional Police Officer
may, within seven working days of the filing of an application, after
obtaining opinion of the Regional Standing Board and for reasons
to be recorded in writing, transfer investigation of a case from the
investigation officer or a team of investigation officers of a rank
equal to or higher than the rank of the previous investigation
officer or officers.
(3) -----------

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on case titled

Qari Muhammad Rafique vs. Additional Inspector General of

Police (Inv.), Punjab and others (2014 SCMR 1499 [Supreme

Court of Pakistan]), the challan had been submitted in the Court

two months prior to the passing of order for transfer of investigation

and at that time charge had also been framed against the accused by

the learned trial Court and the trial had also commenced at the time
W.P. No.21032 of 2015 5

of transfer of investigation and the order for transfer of investigation

at such a belated stage was not sustainable.

Change/transfer of investigation ----scopeInvestigation

transferred at a stage when challan had already been submitted in
Court, charge had been framed and trial had commenced---Order
for transfer of investigation at such a belated stage would not be
sustainable.

11. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.3 has

relied on case titled Raja Khurshid Ahmad vs. Muhammad Bilal

and others (2014 SCMR 474 [Supreme Court of Pakistan]),

wherein the request of the petitioner in the said case for change of

investigation was allowed by the Additional Inspector-General of

Police after submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and it

was held by the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan that there is no

bar to the reinvestigation of a criminal case, and the police

authorities are at liberty to file a supplementary Challan even after

submission of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., however

this cannot be done after the case has been disposed of by the trial

Court. The same is reproduced for ready reference and convenience:-

There is no bar to the reinvestigation of a criminal case, and the

police authorities are at liberty to file a supplementary challan even
after submission of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
However, this cannot be done after the case has been disposed by
the learned trial Court.

It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case

titled Bahadur Khan vs. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2006

SCMR 373 [Supreme Court of Pakistan]) as under:-

Ss.156 & 173---Reinvestigation and submission of subsequent

challan in the Court---Extent and scope---No legal bar exists for
reinvestigation of a criminal case even after submission of final
W.P. No.21032 of 2015 6

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.----Police can carry out the fresh
investigation and submit the report to the Court, but this would not
mean that in a case in which earlier after completion of investigation
challan was submitted for trial of an offence, on which the accused
had been tried and the case was finally decided upto the level of the
High Court or the Supreme Court, subsequent challan would be
entertained which is submitted as the result of reinvestigation or
further investigation of the case by the police on the happening of a
subsequent incident and that the Court would proceed with the trial
of the case in the normal course oblivious of the facts of the case
decided earlier by such Court.

12. Challan in this case was sent up to the Court for trial vide case

diary No.56 dated 30.5.2015. On 12.6.2015, learned trial Court

distributed copies of statements/documents to the accused under

Section 241-A Cr.P.C., framed charge against the accused on

26.6.2015 and fixed the case for recording of prosecution evidence

for 10.7.2015. The impugned order for 2nd transfer of investigation

was passed on 22.6.2015 prior to the commencement of trial and

third round of investigation is underway wherein vide case diary

No.58 dated 25.6.2015 the investigating officer has joined the

complainant party with the investigation of this case.

13. The object and purpose of investigation as well as

reinvestigation of a criminal case is to probe and find evidence and

place all such material before a Court of competent jurisdiction and

not to satisfy the complainant/aggrieved and if any such material is

provided by the investigating agency, that would definitely help the

Court for arriving at just conclusion. In this case, the matter was

investigated twice and the order for second change of investigation

has been made by the competent authority on 22.6.2015 before

framing of charge/commencement of trial and if any fresh

 W.P. No.21032 of 2015 7

material/evidence is brought on record, there is no bar to submit

supplementary report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the

trial in this case has not been finally disposed of by the learned trial

Court.

14. Under Article 18A(2)(5)(b) of the Punjab Police Order

(Amendment) Ordinance 2013 (Ordinance II of 2013), the Regional

Police Officer, Gujranwala Region has lawfully exercised the powers

vested in him for 2nd change of investigation vide impugned order

dated 22.6.2015. There is no legal bar for reinvestigation of a

criminal case even after submission of final report under Section 173

Cr.P.C. but the same can be done before commencement of trial.

The impugned order was passed on 22.6.2015 before the learned trial

Court had taken cognizance of the matter/framing of charge i.e. on

26.6.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to

point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned or even to show

any arbitrary exercise of powers or transgression of powers on his

part. Nothing has been pointed out that the impugned order for

second transfer of investigation shall prejudice the proceedings

before the learned trail Court. The facts and circumstances of the

case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are quite

distinguishable and not directly applicable to this case.

In view of above, the petition in hand is without any merit, the

same stands dismissed.

(Farrukh Gulzar Awan)

Judge
Approved for Reporting.

Judge
Asif*