1998 PLP 666 (SCMR)

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.156‑‑‑Investigation into cognizable offence‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Investigating Authorities do not have entire and total authority of running investigation according to their whims and High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction is competent to pass appropriate orders where investigation, is mala fide or without jurisdiction‑‑‑High Court can also direct the concerned Authorities to finalize their reports within reasonable time when a cognizable case under investigation is under its judicial scrutiny. Anwar Ahmad Khan v. State 1996 SCMR 24 ref. Muhammad Farooq Bedar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Abul Aasim Jafery, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st April, 1997 IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J‑‑‑Mst Sharifan Bibi respondent No. l herein moved habeas corpus petition No. Criminal Miscellaneous 51/H of 1996 in the Lahore High Court for the recovery of one Amjad Ali from the unlawful custody of Muhammad Latif, A.S.I., Police Station Saddar, District Sheikhupura. The petitioner failed to produce the detenu in the High Court and took the stand that the detenu was required in a case F.I.R. No.22 of 1996, registered under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), but his whereabouts were not known. The same plea was raised by the D.S.P. City Sheikhupura. Later the D.S.P. stated that the detenu was falsely involved in the said case by the petitioner A.S.I. for ulterior motive and the recovery of heroin weighing 3 Kgs. 16 grams from the possession of the detenu was planted, in that, when the house of one Mst Inayat Bibi was raided, three kilogram heroin was recovered from there but Amjad detenu was not there. The D.S.P. also stated before the High Court that A.S.I. registered the case against Amjad detenu in collusion with said Mst. Inayat Bibi. The petitioner was, however, departmentally dealt with by forfeiting his one year approved service. In these circumstances, the High Court directed the D.S.P. to prepare discharge report of the detenu obviously for appropriate action in accordance with law.

2. Regarding detenu's prayer for quashing the F.I.R., the learned Judge in Chambers declined to grant the relief in the summary proceedings pending before her. In the interest of justice, however, the Senior Superintendent of police, Sheikhupura was directed to register a case and get the same investigated by an honest gazetted Police Officer. The learned Judge in Chambers further observed that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura would also consider the desirability of taking departmental action against Muhammad Siddique, Head Constable, who attested a false and fake recovery.

3. Mr. Muhammad Farooq Bedar, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner made a grievance against the impugned direction of investigation by a gazetted police officer as well as the direction that the investigation should be brought to the notice of the High Court. Mr. Farooq Bedar also argued that the observation of the High Court in the impugned order, "The retention of such police officer in the police department is a stigma to the police force and he is deserved to be dealt with severally" will prejudice the trial, inasmuch as, pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the High Court the petitioner will ultimately be punished by the trial Court.

4. The apprehensions expressed on behalf of the petitioner are unfounded. It is true that it is not appropriate for the High Court to start a parallel enquiry at investigation stage. Here, the impugned order passed by the High Court for investigation of the case by a gazetted Police Officer did not amount top, interference with the investigation. The High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction was right in issuing the aforesaid directions in order to ensure justice and fairplay, particularly, in view of the subsequent statement made by the D.S.P. that a false case was registered against the detenu Amjad with ulterior motive. In the case of. Anwar Ahmad Khan v. The State (1996 SCMR 24) this Court observed that Investigating Authorities do not have entire and total authority of running investigation according to their whims and the High Court, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction was competent to pass appropriate orders where investigation was mala fide or without jurisdiction. It could also direct the concerned Authorities to finalize their reports within reasonable time, when a cognizable case under investigation is under its judicial scrutiny.

5. We are also unable to agree with the plea raised by. the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observations of the High Court reproduced above tantamount to a direction to dismiss the petitioner from Police service. Suffice it to say that the observations by the High Court were of general nature. We have, no doubt, in our minds that the Trial Court while deciding the case shall act justly, fairly and in accordance with law on the basis of evidence produced before it, without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./M‑68/S . Leave refused.