2007 P Cr (PLP)

SH. HAKIM ALI, J.

Through this writ petition, it has been submitted that Haji Abdul Rauf, who is involved in case F.I.R. No.56 of 2006, registered with Police Station Saddar Rahimyar Khan, under section 406 of the P.P.C. was declared innocent upon an inquiry conducted by Muhammad Yaqoob S.-I., and this, opinion which was given by the aforesaid S.-I. could not be reopened by some other Police Officer upon the influence of Federal Minister.

2. Learned A.A.-G. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, submits that Muhammad Yaqoob S.-I., had not conducted any inquiry of the aforesaid case. In fact, he had appeared along with record in a bail petition titled Haji Abdul Rauf v. The State before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan and had made statement after consulting the record of Zimni No.21-Alif, by which Inspector/S.H.O. had declared Haji Abdul Rauf innocent. Therefore, prayer of the writ petitioner may be accepted because this Court has not to declare any one innocent or guilty in the case unless there is trial of the case and evidence is brought on the record and appreciated in accordance with law. On 24-7-2006, Abdul Rashid, Investigating Officer had declared Abdul Rauf guilty on the basis of his investigation. But afterward upon influence of someone, through Zimni No.23, dated 29-8-2006, the same Police Officer went on to declare Haji Abdul Rauf, innocent. Against this innocence of the petitioner, informant had filed an application with District Police Officer which was entrusted to the S.S.P. (Investigation) for report. In the meantime; the accused has filed this writ petition. It is prayed by the learned counsel for the informant that this petition is in fact for change of investigation; therefore, it may be directed to present S.P. (Investigation) to place it before Standing Board for change of investigation. After relying upon Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others 2006 SCMR 373 learned counsel submits that re-investigation is always open to the police according to the circumstances and the door of it cannot be closed by the declaration prayed for. The prayer of the writ petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law.

3. Hearing of arguments and the examination of available record, it has been found that Muhammad Yaqoob, S.-I., had not conducted inquiry of the case, therefore, his 'statement before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, was a mere information imparted to that Court, after consulting the police record/file, which information cannot be viewed to be a final opinion of the police. The facts as narrated above have shown that the matter was referred to the S.S.P. (Investigation) by District Police Officer, for report, upon the application of informant filed for change of investigation. In these circumstances, I cannot hold that District Police Officer or S.S.P. (Investigation) had withdrawn the investigation or S.P. (Investigation) had submitted his opinion to that of A.S.-I. namely, Abdul Rashid. It may be kept in view that District Police Officer has got supervisory power under the, Police Order, 2002 all over the police officials of the District, while S.P. (Investigation) is the head of Investigation Branch of Police, as prescribed in subsection(3) of section 18 of the Police Order, 2002, therefore, to supervise and to keep the smooth running of the Police Department and to maintain the high standard and quality of honest and fair investigation, a check system against dishonest subordinate police investigating officials cannot be considered to have, been evaporated by the enacted law. No doubt, an Investigating Officer has been given free hand to investigate a case entrusted to him with all fairness, accepting no outside influence for formation of his opinion with regard to innocence or guilt of persons involved in the commission of offence yet he cannot be absolved of his duty to explain his strange, unreasonable particular conduct in the course of an investigation to his high-ups. It is also worth-mentioning that opinion of a police official is mere an opinion, not the last word in the investigation, not final so as to close the chapter of investigation for all times to come. Investigation and change of investigation on twice occasions has been envisaged by the Police Order, 2002, therefore, I have avoided to impose any final decision. Moreover, interference at this stage cannot be made by this Court as held in Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276 by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Accordingly, this writ petition is not maintainable and is disposed of as such. H.B.T./A-9/L Order accordingly.