2021 P Cr (PLP)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioner has called in question the investigation conducted by FIA in case FIR No. 01/2018, under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), P.C.A., 1947 dated 27.01.2018.

2. The main contentions raised in the petition are that initially the 06 (six) persons were found involved in commission of the alleged offence but later the I.O. of the case in collusion with the other accused carried out manvoured investigation in which the petitioner has been made a scapegoat. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as evident from the statement of the PWs recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been shown to have committed the offence, which is not true and only re-investigation by an honest and impartial I.O. could unearth the real and true facts.

3. On the other hand the learned legal Advisor FIA submitted that the investigation of the case has been carried out in a fair and transparent manner and no person could be allowed under law to get the investigation report in his favour. Per learned counsel for the respondents the investigation in the cases included in FIA schedule is sole domain of FIA and the indulgence of the courts in the investigation is a rare phenomena. Per learned counsel the petitioner filed the instant petition just to linger on the proceedings of the case. The petition is not maintainable and be dismissed accordingly.

4. First Information Report reveals that on 22-01-2018 NPB Jutial Cantt Branch found shortage of 28.700 million and on reconciliation of statements it was found that the accused indented 30 million from the main branch on 17-01-2018 and collected the same but did not deposit the amount in his branch and on 22-01-2018 the accused deserted from the branch. On 27-01-2018 on the written application of one Javed Hussain, AVP/Manager Jutial Cantt. Branch FIR against the accused was lodged.

5. An inquiry was conducted by a two members team consisting of Rana Masood Ahmed AVP and one Mir Muhammad Khilji AVP to probe into the facts. The inquiry report has been made part of the instant petition, in which certain shortcomings were pointed out, which resulted into this unfortunate incident. Needless to say that it was an internal/domestic inquiry and was an internal affair of the bank administration to streamline their practice/procedure for future compliance to avoid such like incidents.

6. The investigation of the instant case has been carried out by I. P. Ghulam Abbas as evident from the record annexed with the instant petition.

7. The interference in investigation by the superior Courts is not warranted under any pretext as there are water tight arrangements for exercise of jurisdiction. The reliance is placed on PLD 1972 SC 677, wherein it has been held as under:- "(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A

High Court has no power under S. 561-A to interfere with police investigation into criminate offence

Investigation if mala fide or beyond jurisdiction of investigation agencies

Recourse could be has to S. 491, Cr.P.C. or Art.

98. Constitution of Pakistan (1962)

Word "Justice" in expression "otherwise to secure the end of justice in S. 561- A

Means justice as administered by other agencies

8. The petitioner would be at liberty to put forward his defence before the trial Court and his defence/version could easily be brought on record by putting certain questions to the witnesses and investigating officer. This Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction or dealing with an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. cannot poke its nose in the affairs of other investigating agencies who enjoy immunity from outside interference during investigation of a criminal case. Needless to say that after submission of challan, the police could carry out further investigation but re-investigation of the case is not allowed. The concept of re-investigation at the instance of accused has recently been developed, which is intended to get favorable reports, which practice if not depreciated will lead to chaos in system and whole the system will crumble down.

9. The petitioner under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is mis-conceived and is dismissed accordingly. SA/127/GB Petition dismissed.