1991 P Cr (PLP)

Kh. Haris Ahmad for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim and Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Addl. A.G. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st April, 1991. Hameed Ullah Qureshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.A., Faisalabad/Investigating Officer after conducting the investigation of the case, submitted a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. On receipt of the report, learned Extra-Assistant Commissioner/Resident Magistrate, Shorkot accepted the recommendation of the Investigating Officer and observed that no cognizable offence was found to have been committed by the accused. Accordingly, he proceeded to discharge the accused vide Annexure `G'. After the discharge order having been passed by the learned Magistrate on 11-5-1989, respondent No.2; D.S.P., C.I.A., Faisalabad started re-investigation of the case under the order of the D.I.G., Faisalabad. Main contention of the learned counsel is that until and unless permission is obtained in writing from the Illaqa Magistrate, respondent No.2, D.S.P. was not competent to launch a fresh investigation in the case. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel in this behalf on the rule laid down in Bahadur v. State P L D 1985 SC 62.

2. Rana Muhammad Arshad, learned Additional Advocate-General argues that the order, dated 11-5-1989 has been passed by the learned Magistrate on his executive side and that the accused were accordingly, discharged by him. He further submits that the Investigating Officer was not at all competent to launch the re-investigation of the case unless he was permitted to do so by the learned Magistrate. He too relies upon Bahadur's case (supra).

3. Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition. He has also submitted a detailed written statement in the case. In pith and substance, his argument is that the Investigating Officer was competent under law to re-investigate the case. In other words, according to the learned counsel, no permission is needed from the Magistrate to launch fresh investigation. He argues that a cognizable offence has been committed by the accused and there is sufficient documentary evidence available on the record in support of his plea.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Law Officer at some length. I do not agree with learned counsel for the complainant inasmuch as it is settled that Police Officer was not competent to launch fresh investigation of the case when a discharge order dated 11-5-1989 had already been passed by the learned Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the Investigating Officer could not reinvestigate the case unless he was permitted to do so. The Police Officer, if so desires or is called upon to do so may do it after obtaining the necessary permission from the learned Magistrate. With this observation this petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. SA./I-262/1, Petition accepted.