Investigation of case

Investigating Officer, not only occupied a key role in the criminal justice system, but was also the most important witness, who collected evidence and placed the same before the court

Investigating Officer, could refresh his memory before deposing in the court

Article 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 conferred a right upon accused to cross-examine the witness as to his previous statement made by him in writing or reduced into writing

Investigating Officer, in the present case, was under cross-examination before the Trial Court; nothing was on record to show that he was examined without consulation of Police file

Once, Investigating Officer, consulted the Police file, he was amenable to cross-examination

If the Diary was used by Investigating Officer to refresh his memory, Art.140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 would apply and the adverse party must be shown the entry and could cross-examine the witness on the same; because, the object was to arrive at just and proper decision of the case

No prohibition existed against the court permitting in its discretion the defence counsel to see the portion of the Police Diary, which the court would consider fit in the interest of justice

Trial Court was directed to allow the defence Counsel to cross-examine the Investigating Officer, as provided by S.172(2), Cr.P.C. and Art.157 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Chairman NAB has the prerogative under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, to carry out an inquiry/ investigation in any manner prescribed in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Chairman NAB need not have to make a Joint Investigation Team for the purpose of investigation.

Crux of Ss.169, 170 & 173, Cr.P.C., was that the Investigating Officer had to submit the final report with regard to the result of his investigation for taking cognizance, or passing order under S.173, Cr.P.C.

Police, could not adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the offender, because it was not their duty to decide as to which party was wrong or right

Investigation was required to be completed without unnecessary delay or impediment and as soon as, it was complete, the challan was required to be submitted not later than 14 days

Ultimate decision as to whether person was guilty or not, rested with the court of law and not with the police.

Officer incharge of a Police Station under S.154, Cr.P.C., was legally bound to register the F.I.R. in the relevant book

Mere lodging of F.I.R., by no means, curtailed the power of the Investigating Officer concerned, to investigate the occurrence, or otherwise of the information conveyed

If the Investigating Officer arrived at the conclusion that the allegation, put forward against accused were false, concocted or fabricated; and no evidence could be collected to hold accused responsible for commission of the offence, he could legally recommend the accused under S.169, Cr.P.C.; and also place him in column 2 of the report under S.173, Cr.P.C., to be discharged from the charges levelled against accused

Officer incharge of Police Station, or any one else, had no power to refuse to reduce into writing the relevant information of a cognizable offence, in the relevant register under S.154, Cr.P.C.

Not mandatory, or incumbent upon the officer incharge of concerned Police Station to forthwith arrest nominated accused, after registration of the case, when there existed no likelihood of absconsion of accused, or apprehension of tampering and hampering with prosecution evidence

Where a public servant was charged with a criminal case Government need not suspend, in every cases, such public servant

If a public servant was arrested, he would proceed on leave, and when the Government come to the conclusion that he had prima facie committed an offence, might proceed further to suspend his services.

Investigating Officer had refused to record statement of material prosecution witness (petitioner) on the ground that same went against the prosecution

Magistrate also refused request of the material witness to record his statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C.

Validity

Investigating officer was obliged to conduct fair, impartial and honest investigation and to collect the evidence produced by the prosecution and that by the accused

Facts of the case showed that petitioner was a material witness and Investigating Officer was duty bound to record his statement in view of Police Rules, 1934 and in case of refusal, Judicial Magistrate could record his statement under S. 164 Cr.P.C., to unearth the real controversy and to enable the court to come to the right and just conclusion

Constitutional petition was allowed and Investigating Officer was directed to record statement of witness in question.

Accused was alleged to have committed robbery and allegedly deposited the robbed items and cash in different bank accounts and lockers

Investigation Officer through present application requested opening of said lockers, so that investigation could be completed

Contentions of accused were that question of opening of bank lockers and details of the accounts might be ascertained during trial and that permission for opening of lockers would prejudice his defence

Validity

Necessity to open the locker and to ascertain the complete statement of accused would have to be seen with reference to the investigation

Police had the power to seize any property which might be found under circumstance, creating reasons of commission of an offence

Property lying in a locker or in bank account of accused was case property within the meaning of S.102, Cr.P.C, and nothing would prevent the police from seizing or recovering case property in the course of investigation, particularly assets which had direct link with the commission of the offence

Application was allowed and permission for opening of lockers was granted.