Reinvestigation

2020 PLD 10 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.18(c)Seventeen years old caseReinvestigation"Investigation by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and "Police investigation"Distinction

National Accountability Bureau was aggrieved of order passed by Accountability Court denying reinvestigation of the case

Lot of difference existed between manner and procedure of investigation conducted by police and NAB as latter had more resources and time to collect all possible evidence

Presumption after closure of earlier investigation, was that accused was granted clean chit

If in same case, reinvestigation was requested by NAB authorities, it had to approach Accountability Court concerned and must show that some new and important evidence was collected connecting accused with commission of offence which for reason, could not be collected at time of earlier investigation

Accountability Court was not to blindly follow opinion of investigator and upon its satisfaction could order reinvestigation by assigning reasons

Accused persons, in the present case, were facing inquiry and investigation for a long period and inquiry started in year 2002

In between period, accused persons were called many times during inquiry as well as during investigation

Investigation/case was closed on request of Chairman NAB by Trial Court, even when Trial Court noticed accused persons at time of filing application for investigation/reopening of case, same were received unserved to extent of some accused persons as some of them reportedly had died

High Court declined to allow reinvestigation as accused persons had suffered for last 17 years for no fault on their part

Investigation agency could not be allowed to make mockery of law and keep sword of proceedings/prosecution hanging over heads of accused persons for any further period

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2019 PLD 101 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 109, 337-A(iv), 406, 417, 420, 424 & 504Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionReinvestigationSupplementary statementFirst Ingformation Report, quashing of

Accused persons were aggrieved of reinvestigation of case on basis of supplementary statement when challan had already been filed at Trial Court where case was fixed for recording of evidence

Validity

Further investigation so carried out by investigating agency was not maintainable in eyes of law

Offenses mentioned in F.I.R. were not attracted when otherwise F.I.R. was solely lodged with allegations of assaulting complainants and did not contain details of any fraud allegedly committed by accused persons with complainants

Such exercise carried out by investigating officer on basis of supplementary statement was uncalled for

Supplementary statement made by complainant before investigating officer regarding same occurrence was neither admissible as evidence nor same could be equated with F.I.R. or read as its part

Supplementary statement was always considered fragile type of evidence and on basis of same nature of entire case cannot be changed as such kind of supplementary statements are filed after consultation and deliberations

High Court quashed proceedings carried out by investigating officer with regard to reinvestigation and insertions of additional offenses under S.406, 417, 420, 424, 504 & 109 P.P.C.

Petition was allowed accordingly.

2019 MLD 433 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 18(c)ReinvestigationPendency of trialScope

Reinvestigation/further investigation can be carried out right up to and during course of trial.

2018 PLD 76 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 18ReinvestigationPrinciplePetitioner was accused facing investigation under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Plea raised by petitioner was that earlier he had been declared innocent and inquiry against him was closed, therefore, no fresh inquiry or investigation could be initiated

Validity

National Accountability Bureau had authority to accept complaint of any person against holder of public office for committing corruption and corrupt practices as envisaged under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Bureau could accept fresh evidence from complainant or any other person regarding a complaint against holder of public office for committing corruption and corrupt practices as provided under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and same was under verification and not formally closed

Bureau could accept and consider not only fresh evidence from complainant or a fresh complaint by another person regarding a matter which was formally closed subject to seeking sanction of authority that had approved closure of earlier complaint

Bureau on closure of all complaints had to record in writing whether same were prima facie frivolous or intended to defame any person and if so, had to proceed against such complainant as provided under S.18(h) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Bureau could proceed against petitioner keeping in view such principles

High Court directed petitioner to respond to queries raised or provide all information or record sought by National Accountability Bureau in furtherance of complaints received against him

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

2018 PCrLJN 105 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 156Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionReinvestigationScope

Petitioner/accused had sought issuance of directions to Police Authorities to re-investigate the FIRs lodged against him

Name of the accused was mentioned in the FIR with specific role of instigation to other co-accused, whereby two persons were murdered at the spot

Alleged incident had occurred in the day time on main road

No ambiguity existed regarding identification of accused as to who was the aggressor persons as they were, otherwise, close relatives of each other

Factual controversy, could only be resolved by the Trial Court after recording evidence of witnesses

Challan had been submitted before the court after conclusion of investigation

Petitioner (accused) during investigation had not complained about unfair and partial attitude of Investigating Officer; had not levelled any allegation that Investigating Officer did not consider the evidence produced by him, or wrongly recorded the statements of witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C., and had not pointed out any serious flaw in the investigation

Trial had commenced after framing of charge against accused (petitioner) and other co-accused and prosecution witnesses were regularly attending the Trial Court

Divergent stance taken in the petition by the petitioner, could not be considered at belated stage, as petitioner, neither agitated such ground before the Investigating Officer, nor any complaint was made to any competent forum

Recording of evidence of witnesses was essential, in order to thrash out the truth

Plea of re-investigation at such belated stage, amounted to frustrate the trial

Process of repeated investigations could not be allowed as a matter of routine; it was obligatory for the court to consider each case in purview of its own peculiar perspective and re-investigation could not be permitted in every case

Re-investigation, without any justification, could not be ordered on the mere wish and whim of accused, which would cause serious prejudice to the merits of the case

Petitioner (accused) could place his defence plea before the Trial Court by producing witnesses or documentary proof to contradict the allegations levelled by the prosecution against him

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2016 YLR 559 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.173 & 561-ACopyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962), Ss. 56, 66, 67 & 74Copyright, infringement ofReinvestigation

Grievance of accused was that police submitted investigation report under class "C" which was accepted by Magistrate but on application filed by complainant he passed an order to reinvestigate the matter

Validity

No legal limit existed under S.173, Cr.P.C. to the number of investigations which could be held into a crime

When one investigation was not fully completed by submission of report under S.173, Cr.P.C. another could be begun to dig out and collect fact and evidence due to incomplete investigation

High Court declined to quash the order passed by Magistrate, as the same did not suffer from any infirmity

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.