P L D 1987 Supreme Court 13 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from order dated 7‑7‑1986 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby pending trial before a learned Court bail was allowed to the respondents. Case was registered against the respondents at the instance of the petitioner for offences under section 307/364/365/452/148/149, P. P. C. A learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and framed charge under section 364/307/452/148/149, P. P. C. and .thereafter statement of one of the prosecution witnesses was also recorded. In the meanwhile; the Police on the intervention of higher authorities re‑investigated the case, and submitted a second report under section 173, Cr. P. C. for offences under section 336/342/148/149, P. P. C. The other more serious offences were omitted. Effort was made by the accused to seek bail on the basis of the second report from a learned lower Court but without any success. The High Court, on further application by them took note of the result of the investigations by the Police and the fact that the State supported the plea for bail, granted the same to the respondents ; therefore, the com plainant has sought leave to appeal through this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that second investiga tion and a subsequent Report under section 173, Cr. P. C. particularly when the Court had taken cognizance of the case is not permissible by law ; that such a second negative report by the police cannot debar the trial Court from proceeding with the trial of the offences as brought out in the charge‑sheet against the respondents; and lastly, that in any case it was not a case for further inquiry, therefore, the respondents could not be granted bail under section 498 read with 497, Cr. P. C. The law on the first point raised by the learned counsel, is settled. The first case coming to our notice in which the previous law was also discussed is Muhammad Niwaz v. The Crown (48 Cr. L J 774) wherein a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court held that the number of investigations into a crime by a police officer is not limited by law and when one has been completed, another may be begun on further information received., And this was also possible even after the submission of the challan report, when the Court has already taken cognizance of the case. This Court also in Muhammad Akbar v. The State and another (1972 S C M R 335 .) held that there is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the Investigating, Officer from submitting a subsequent report in supersession of his earlier.E one either on his initiative or on the direction of the superior police officer.` There are other cases also. See : Noor Nabi Agha v. The State (P L D 1972 Kar. 292), Muhammad Hayat v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and another (P L D 1970 Lab. 679), Alam Din v. The State (P L D 1973 Lab. 304)‑in this case also previous case law was discussed and reliance was placed on very weighty observations in this behalf made in Atta Muhammad v. Inspector‑General of Police, West Pakistan Lahore and others (P L D 1965 (W. P.) Lab. 734), no reason has been advanced for us to differ with these observations Muhammad Khan and others v. Inspector‑General, Police, Punjab, etc. (P L D 1976 Lab. 574) and Muhammad Khan v. Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others (P L D 1978 Lab. 731). Previous law was again discussed in the last mentioned case. A seemingly contrary view taken in Muhammad Akbar v. The State (1985 P Cr. L J 338) by a learned Judge in the Lahore High Court is in connection with the supply of copy of the report to the accused under section 265‑C, Cr. P. C. That point does not arise in the present proceedings. That case besides being distinguishable cannot be treated as having changed the settled law. As the point raised by the learned counsel regarding the competency of subsequent investigation after the submission of the first report under section 173, Cr. P. C. stands resolved, we do not consider it proper to grant leave to appeal to examine the same point again. Although according to the learned counsel there is considerable case law in his support on the second point, in our view it does not arise in the present bail proceedings. The learned Magistrate has not passed any order refusing to proceed with the trial of the case as originally presented by the police on account of the reason that a subsequent negative report under section 173, Cr. P. C. has been submitted with regard to some of the offences. The last argument raised by the learned counsel is also without any force as the learned Single Judge in the High Court has not allowed bail on the ground of further inquiry as is available under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C. The bail has been granted on general consideration of merits under section 498 read with 497(1), Cr. P. C. After hearing the learned counsel at some length we do not find any force in this petition and the same, is dismissed. Before closing this judgment it may be observed that during the argu ments reference was also made to the following cases but in the light of the foregoing decisions on the points raised before us it is not necessary to examine them in detail. They are Wazir v. The State P L D 1962 (W. P.) Lab. 405 ; Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. Non. r Muhammad and others P L D 1977 Lab. 176 ; Fida Hussain etc. v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 336 ; Falak Sher and another v. The State P L D 1967 S C 425 ; Chaudhry Muhammad Khan v. Sanaullah and another P L D 1971 S C 324 ; and Abdul Rauf and 3 others v. The State 1980 SCMR

58. M. s. A. Petition dismissed.