Investigation of offence

2025 PCrLJ 1791 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 295-A, 295-B & 295-CPrevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 11, 29, 44 (1) & 51Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 196 & 439

Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs; defiling, etc., of copy of the Holy Quran; person of Quadiani Group, etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith and hate speech

Investigation of offence

Sanction of authority

Scope

Accused was aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court dismissing his application for seeking sanction of authority for taking cognizance

Validity

Provisions of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, have been promulgated to prevent unauthorized acts concerning information systems and to provide mechanisms for related offences as well as procedures for investigation, prosecution, trial and international cooperation with respect thereto and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto

Federal Government under Ss.29 & 56 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, has notified Prevention of Electronic Crimes Investigation Rules, 2018, to carry out purpose of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016

Offences under S.11 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and Ss. 295-A, 295-B & 298-C of Penal Code, 1860, are interlinked and are to be tried by Court established under S.44(1) of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016

For proceedings before a Court constituted under a special statute, provision of S.196, Cr.P.C.,would not apply as it was inconsistent with the provisions of Special Act

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court as there was no illegality or irregularity

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2025 PCrLJ 233 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 155(2)Investigation of offencePowers

When a power is given to an authority to do something, it includes such incidental or implied powers that would ensure proper doing of that thing

When statute expressly grants any power, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control, the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective

Power to order police to investigate cases involving non-cognizable offences under S.155(2), Cr.P.C. includes all such incidental powers essential to ensure a proper investigation.

2016 PCrLJ 441 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 21(4)Investigation of offenceScope

Ehtesab Bureau would be responsible for investigation of an offence alleged to have been committed under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 to the exclusion of any other agency or authority unless any such agency or authority was required to do so by the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau

Chairman Ehtesab Bureau could issue an order for transfer of a case to another agency for investigation.

2015 PCrLJ 949 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 156 & 173Investigation of offence

Investigating Officer was to collect all the facts connecting with the commission of offence; and if he would find that no offence was committed, he could submit a report under S.173, Cr.P.C.

If the Investigating Officer was restrained from investigating the matter, his statutory duty would be curtailed

Functions of the judiciary, and the Police were complementary not overlapping; and the combination of individual liberty with due observation of law.

2015 PCrLJ 387 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 22-AConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionInvestigation of offenceRegistration of criminal case

Accused assailed order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directing police to register case, if any offence was made out from statement of complainant

Validity

Question whether deceased had been administered poisonous tablets by accused and his other family members or he himself committed suicide was a question of fact which could be resolved after recording of evidence

Such exercise could not be carried out by High Court in summary procedure while sitting in Constitutional jurisdiction

Matter needed thorough investigation which could be conducted at an appropriate stage by police

High Court declined to assume role of police at such premature stage and did not interfere in the matter as the same would amount to throttle investigation

No illegality or infirmity in the order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had taken place, same was maintained

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 PLD 46 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 169 & 561-AConstitution of Pakistan, Art.199Investigation of offenceConstitutional petitionPolice releasing accused on personal bondJusticiability of such action of police under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.Scope

Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. could not be exercised to judicially correct an action or inaction of a police officer during investigation of the criminal offence

High Court might exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution to entertain such a matter, however even such authority was to be exercised scarcely and only in cases, where impugned action or inaction of the police authority was "mala fide" or "without lawful authority".