2002 P Cr (PLP)

The learned counsel has questioned the entrustment of the investigation fourth time as according to him the challan had been submitted in Court and thereafter, there was no justification to do the same. The learned Additional Advocate‑General was called upon to collect the necessary information from the concerned officers, as a result of which a detailed report has been submitted by the S.S.P. Sargodha. As per report earlier investigations were conducted by S.‑I., Inspector and D.S.P. but according to him fact came to light that plea of alibi raised by the accused persons which had earlier been accepted, was not true, therefore, fourth investigation was taken up, necessary evidence was collected and it was found that plea was not supported by the relevant evidence. The investigation had been finalized and supplementary report is being submitted.

2. The learned counsel has seriously assailed the authority to embark upon the investigation after submission of the challan but in far: no final challan had been submitted in Court, only incomplete challan was submitted and thereafter, the fourth investigation had been taken up as according to the respondents some cogent and credible evidence had come to light. It is true that successive investigations have been discouraged by this Court and this mode has been deprecated as it is recent development in the history of investigation. Although successive investigations have been discourage yet if some important or credible material is collected which is necessary to be placed before the Court to arrive at some just conclusion then there is no ouster of jurisdiction or legal bar on the fresh investigation. According to the respondents, as incomplete challan had been submitted and that a supplementary challan could be submitted subsequently. In support of this contention reliance is placed on:‑‑ 1987 SCMR 103, PLD 1988 Lah. 666 and 2000 PCr.LJ 1551.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Police Authorities or functionaries are legally debarred from initiating fresh investigation after submission of challan. In support of his contention has placed reliance on the case of Nazeer Ahmad v. State PLD 1998 Lah.

742. In this case the transfer of investigation at the behest of the Chief Minister was declared to be nullity in the eye of law and investigation was directed to be continued by the A.I.G., Multan. The next case referred is Syed Waqar Hussain Shah v. State PLD 1988 Lah.

666. This very case has been referred by the respondents as well, wherein it was observed that after submission of complete challan, subsequent investigation would be uncalled for, and must be avoided. The stage envisaged in this case is "submission of complete challan". It has nowhere been observed that Police Authorities are rendered functus officio after submission of incomplete challan with regard to conduct of investigation. Similarly, in the case Abdul Aziz v. S. P. and 2 others PLD 1997 Lah. 24 reopening of the investigation under political pressure was disapproved. Lastly the learned counsel has referred to the authority by the Honourable Supreme Court Riaz Hussain and others v. The State wherein at para. 15 of the judgment it was observed that re‑investigation is a recent innovation which is always taken up at the instance of influential people and favourable reports are obtained. Instead of assisting the Court it creates more complications to the Court in administration of justice. This system of re‑investigation was disapproved very sternly.

4. As already, noted, re‑investigation of case without any Justification is always considered and treated as unwarranted but at the same time if the investigation is taken up afresh on the basis of some cogent and reliable evidence or material that action cannot be struck down and it cannot be held to be nullity. Needless to observe that any opinion of the police is not binding on the Courts. The Court has to base its verdict on the strength of the evidence and material collected by it itself.

5. This petition, therefore, is dismissed being without merits. H.B.T./G‑118/L Petition dismissed.