Investigation

This is a misconduct in the case of an investigator or a person in authority, such as in charge of a Police Station, to give access to or facilitate any person to interfere with the course of investigation in violation of procedure prescribed under Cr.P.C., read with enabling provisions of other statutes.

Trial Court convicted the appellant and awarded penalty under clause (c) of S.32 of the Act, 2019, mainly for violation of S.103, Cr.P.C., and not providing an opportunity to the women of dwelling house to observe pardah

Trial Court, after forming a tentative opinion that the appellant had violated the S.27 as well as S.31 of the Act and was liable to punishment under S.32, had issued a show cause notice and on receipt of the reply, convicted and sentenced the appellant

Validity

Record showed that the appellant had never been put to trial nor had any evidence been recorded or he had been confronted with the pieces of evidence as required under S.342, Cr.P.C.

In this case also, the conflict between S.32 of the Act and S.55 of the Act could only be resolved by reading the two Sections together

Indemnity provided under S.55 was, therefore, to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led before the Trial Court but same could not be taken to be absolute immunity

Once the Court comes to a conclusion tentatively and forms an opinion that the offence under S.32 was forthcoming in a case then the course open to such Court would be to direct the appropriate police station to register a separate FIR against the Authorized Officer

Before ordering registration of FIR against an Authorized Officer the Court would have to form a tentative opinion on the basis of material present before it

For said purpose, a show-cause notice should also be served on the Authorized Officer and he should be provided an opportunity of hearing before lodging criminal prosecution against him

After registration of such FIR, investigation of the case would automatically trigger

In accordance with S.45 of the Act read with Chapter 14 Cr.P.C., investigations were to be conducted by another Authorized Officer

At the conclusion of investigation report was to be submitted to the Trial Court in the form of challan like in rest of the cases and then the special Court was supposed to conduct trial in the case having exclusive jurisdiction to try the case under S.23 of the Act

In the present case, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant without any investigation and trial was not sustainable

Resultantly, appeal was partially allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law in the light of above observations.

During the proceedings of the case, accused moved an application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C, for his acquittal, which was allowed

Validity

As per record, the Court was not in agreement with the mode and manner of initial order of attachment passed by the Trial Court without considering the details and application of law in is particular case rather the Court had mechanically processed the case on the so-called report of Investigating Officer without adverting to the facts that tax authorities had not yet concluded any of the questions in the case, neither threshold of prima facie Rs. ten million unpaid tax was visibly seen

Commissioner Appeal had annulled the amendment proceedings conducted by the Assessing Officer by declaring the same beyond his jurisdiction and all the additions made under S.111(1)(b) of the Ordinance, 2001, were also deleted

Such aspect left nothing in favour of Investigating Officer as well as the Court to proceed and exercise its jurisdiction under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010

Order impugned had been passed in terms of S.265-K, Cr.P.C and as such there was no cavil to the proposition that powers under S.265-K, Cr.P.C could be exercised at any stage of trial or proceedings

Even otherwise, when Court came to the conclusion at initial stage or middle stage of the proceedings or at the end of the evidence that the charge was groundless or there was no probability of accused being convicted of any offence, even prior to the framing of charge the Court had to pass the order by appreciating the concept of groundless charge

Even suo-moto powers could be exercised

Said provision had a special significance in the Cr.P.C but it was subject to satisfaction of the Court on the basis of available record or evidence that further proceedings in the trial might be a futile exercise and there was no probability of conviction which was apparent in the case; also where the primary requirement of charge was not fulfilled

Neither Investigating Officer was competent to investigate the matter in accordance with the required standard and at last the Income Tax Authorities had not yet declared the accused guilty of any charge in terms of Ss.192 & 192-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Thus, entire superstructure made by the prosecution crumbled down and Trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Investigation of cognizable offence or non-cognizable offence has reference to procedure which does not affect substantive rights of accused.

Petitioners were aggrieved of investigation of offence of money laundering by Directorate (I&I), Inland Revenue, during proceedings under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Conduct of investigation of an offence was an essential part and closely related to procedure

Authority which was subsequently added as investigating agency had no bar on its powers and authority to investigate cases in which the offense was committed in the past

Purpose of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, was to prevent money laundering and to attach/confiscate properties generated from the proceeds of crime which had its genesis in the predicate offence

Commission of predicate offence was prerequisite for proceedings under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, to commence before the Court

Proceeds of crime could only materialize once a predicate offence was committed

As Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, was a penal statute therefore, it could have no retrospective operation by virtue of Art. 12 of the Constitution

Any proceedings commenced under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, could not sustain in respect of transaction which crystallized prior to the introduction of Ss. 192, 192A, 194 & 199 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as predicate offences through amendment made in Schedule-I of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010

Punishment prescribed for the offence under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, did not relate to the commission of predicate offence rather it was the offence of money laundering that had been made punishable

Date of commission of predicate offence was not material

Offence of money laundering that could be proceeded must be committed after Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, had come into force or inclusion of predicate offence in Schedule-I to Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010

Question Whether any person was in possession of any property derived from proceeds of crime was a question of fact

High Court directed investigating officer to strictly adhere to law laid down by superior courts and declined to interfere in the process of investigation

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were aggrieved of investigation of offence of money laundering by Directorate (I&I), Inland Revenue, during proceedings under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Conduct of investigation of an offence was an essential part and closely related to procedure

Authority which was subsequently added as investigating agency had no bar on its powers and authority to investigate cases in which the offense was committed in the past

Purpose of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, was to prevent money laundering and to attach/confiscate properties generated from the proceeds of crime which had its genesis in the predicate offence

Commission of predicate offence was prerequisite for proceedings under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, to commence before the Court

Proceeds of crime could only materialize once a predicate offence was committed

As Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, was a penal statute therefore, it could have no retrospective operation by virtue of Art. 12 of the Constitution

Any proceedings commenced under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, could not sustain in respect of transaction which crystallized prior to the introduction of Ss. 192, 192A, 194 & 199 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as predicate offences through amendment made in Schedule-I of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010

Punishment prescribed for the offence under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, did not relate to the commission of predicate offence rather it was the offence of money laundering that had been made punishable

Date of commission of predicate offence was not material

Offence of money laundering that could be proceeded must be committed after Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, had come into force or inclusion of predicate offence in Schedule-I to Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010

Question Whether any person was in possession of any property derived from proceeds of crime was a question of fact

High Court directed investigating officer to strictly adhere to law laid down by superior courts and declined to interfere in the process of investigation

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Investigation of cognizable offence or non-cognizable offence has reference to procedure which does not affect substantive rights of accused.

Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. does not expressly confer power on a Magistrate to order an investigation in a non-cognizable offence as is given by section 156(3) & section 159, Cr.P.C.

Police may report for an order under section 155(2), Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate can order for the investigation

Magistrate, however, has to apply his mind to the facts and before passing the orders has to see whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed

Fact whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed, is a very material circumstance to be taken into account in deciding whether an investigation should be ordered

Magistrate must apply his judicial mind to satisfy himself that reasonable grounds exist for believing that an offence has been committed before he orders such type of investigation

If he does not do so, he would be acting arbitrarily in ordering an investigation

Order to investigate is an important matter and it must precede the investigation by the Police Officer

Magistrate has unfettered discretion to grant or refuse the order for any reason that he deems appropriate

In order to perform the function of granting or withholding permission to investigate, the Magistrate must have a thorough understanding of the facts of the case.

Petitioners were aggrieved of investigation of offence of money laundering by Directorate (I&I), Inland Revenue, during proceedings under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Conduct of investigation of an offence was an essential part and closely related to procedure

Authority which was subsequently added as investigating agency had no bar on its powers and authority to investigate cases in which the offense was committed in the past

Purpose of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, was to prevent money laundering and to attach/confiscate properties generated from the proceeds of crime which had its genesis in the predicate offence

Commission of predicate offence was prerequisite for proceedings under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, to commence before the Court

Proceeds of crime could only materialize once a predicate offence was committed

As Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, was a penal statute therefore, it could have no retrospective operation by virtue of Art. 12 of the Constitution

Any proceedings commenced under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, could not sustain in respect of transaction which crystallized prior to the introduction of Ss. 192, 192A, 194 & 199 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as predicate offences through amendment made in Schedule-I of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010

Punishment prescribed for the offence under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, did not relate to the commission of predicate offence rather it was the offence of money laundering that had been made punishable

Date of commission of predicate offence was not material

Offence of money laundering that could be proceeded must be committed after Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, had come into force or inclusion of predicate offence in Schedule-I to Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010

Question whether any person was in possession of any property derived from proceeds of crime was a question of fact

High Court directed investigating officer to strictly adhere to law laid down by superior courts and declined to interfere in the process of investigation

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Investigation of cognizable offence or non-cognizable offence has reference to procedure which does not affect substantive rights of accused.

Investigating Officer has to collect entire relevant facts of the occurrence irrespective of the fact that such facts favour prosecution or accused; he is under obligation to collect the evidence honestly, justly and fairly for bringing the truth on record not only to build up the case of complainant with evidence enabling the Court to record conviction but also for reaching to a just and fair decision

If investigation is not conducted on merits then ultimately it causes frightful harm to the concept of fair trial guaranteed by Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Criminal Procedure Code has no express provision for making order regarding change or re-investigation is available yet same subject has been dealt in the light of S. 551, Cr.P.C. and under administrative control of police hierarchy

However, in Police Order, 2002, such subject was expressly dealt by Art. 18 and not being dealt under Article 18-A introduced through the Punjab Police Order (Amendment) Act, 2013.

Police must unearth the truth, collect all evidence available on indictable conduct and locate persons suspected of a violation.

Mere fact that FIR is registered does not obligate investigating officer to arrest accused.

Fair investigation is concomitant to the right to fair trial guaranteed under Art. 10-A of the Constitution.

Expression "fair and proper investigation" connotes two things: firstly, that the investigation should be honest, unbiased and in accordance with law, and secondly, the entire emphasis should be to dig out the truth and bring it before the court of justice.

Criminal investigation is a lawful search for people and things useful in reconstructing the circumstances of an illegal act or omission and the mental state accompanying it

Investigation is probing from the known to the unknown, backward in time, and its goal is to determine truth as far as it can be discovered in any post-factum inquiry.

Section 4(1)(l), Cr.P.C., terms those proceedings as "investigation" which are conducted for collection of evidence by a police officer or any person authorized by a magistrate (who is not a magistrate himself)

Duty of the police is limited to collection of evidence

Power to determine whether an accused is guilty vests with the courts.

First Information Report in question was cancelled by investigating officer on the ground that complainant and witness failed to appear before him in support of the allegations

Validity

Fair investigation is mandatory for fair trial which has been guaranteed by Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Cancellation report was prepared without concluding that allegation levelled in the case was established or not but merely on the ground that complainant and witnesses did not join investigation

It was not mentioned in cancellation report that process for compelling attendance of petitioner and his witnesses through warrants, proclamation and attachment was issued and no proof was annexed in such regard

Trial Court concurred with investigating officer without taking into consideration such failure of investigating officer

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court and remanded the matter for decision afresh on cancellation report filed by investigating officer

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner sought stay of execution proceedings on the plea that she was owner of property intended to be sold in execution of decree

Both the Courts below dismissed application of petitioner without investigating her claim to the property

Validity

Order made by Revisional Court contained no discussion in that regard but merely endorsed the view of lower forum that no investigation was required in terms of O.XXI, R.58, C.P.C. as purported sale agreement did not serve to create any right or interest in the property in favour of petitioner

Orders of the fora below were predicated in that respect squarely on S.54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which clarified that a contract for sale of immovable property could not of itself had created any interest in or charge on such property

Both the lower forums failed to consider the provisions of S.53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882,which served to shield possession of property obtained in part performance of a contract of sale

Courts below adopted an overly restricted approach on the touchstone of S.54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, while failing to consider the principles otherwise laid down by Courts

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside the orders passed by two Courts below and remanded the matter to Executing Court for decision afresh on the application of petitioner

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Investigation is to be carried out by officer entrusted with same diligently, effectively and honestly, without having any preset notion

Investigating officer should collect entire evidence that is inculpatory and exculpatory

Fair trial requires that entire evidence collected by investigating agency, whether inculpatory or exculpatory is to be presented before the court, so that while reaching to conclusion regarding guilt of accused or otherwise the adjudicating authority has benefit of the same.

Observations recorded by the Supreme Court about the importance of lady police officers for investigating crimes of honour killing and the need for Standard Operating Procedure for investigating crimes committed against women on the pretext of honour.

Defective investigation conducted by a Police Officer could not stand in the way of complainant who was seeking justice from the court.

To curb illegal practice of police officials regarding arrest and production of accused before Area Magistrate, High Court issued directions:

No legal bar exists for the complainant also being the investigating officer of the case.

Critical and essential responsibility of investigating officer demands that he should not be affiliated to or member of any party of a criminal case.

No specific bar exists under the law against complainant, who is also investigating officer of the case but being complainant himself an investigating officer, it cannot be expected that he will collect any material which goes against the prosecution or gives any benefit to the accused

Evidence of such officer is a weak piece of evidence and for sustaining a conviction it would require independent corroboration.

Investigating Officer was bound to collect all the available information and placed the same in juxtaposition to reach a conclusion by separating the grain from chaff.

Petitioners assailed show cause notices issued to them by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan regarding investigation into the affairs of company in question

Validity

In order to investigate into affairs of company, report under S. 221(5) of Companies Act, 2017, was necessary which had close connection with S. 256 of Companies Act, 2017

Any report complied under such provisions could logically form basis of an investigation sought to be conducted by the Commission into the affairs of company in question

Investigation into affairs of company was a serious matter and entailed consequences, both financial as well as goodwill of that corporate entity

Such powers could not be used lightly by the Commission

Powers to investigate into the affairs of company were circumscribed by provisions of S. 256 of Companies Act, 2017

In case suo motu powers were required to be exercised by the Commission, minimum requirement mentioned in S. 257(1)(13) of Companies Act, 2017 had to be looked into

Such powers were to be preceded by formation of an opinion and thereafter a show cause notice giving the company an opportunity of hearing could be issued

In case there was no formation of opinion by the Commission, investigation could not be initiated in a mechanical fashion

Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan failed to prove any opinion which was formulated independently while considering minimum requirement of investigation into the affairs of company excluding orders of Company Judge and no justiciable reasoning was rendered in writing

High Court set aside show cause notices issued by the Commission as order passed by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan by issuing show cause notice was nullity in the eyes of law

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Duty of investigating officer is to discover incriminating evidence and to collect and establish that story of incident contained in FIR was correct

Investigating officer is not controlled or guided by contents of FIR rather it is his own authority to search for truth and he may disagree with version of FIR as it is expected from him to collect information or to record any fresh information or facts and he may arrive at its own conclusion.

Any leverage or concession extended to the accused, being lapses on the part of the investigating agency, would not be termed fatal to prosecution case

If said lapses were not materially affecting the veracity and credence of ocular account, they would be considered as immaterial.

Criminal trial was not vitiated even if the case was investigated by an officer who was not authorized by law, provided that accused was not prejudiced.

Provision of R. 24.4 of Police Rules, 1934, does not tyrannically foreclose doors to a complainant to voice his / her grievance nor dogmatically empowers an officer incharge to terminate a prosecution before its inception on his subjective belief of it being false

Application of R. 24.4 of Police Rules, 1934, is subservient to the scheme laid down in Part V, Cr.P.C. and has to be essentially read in conjunction with S. 169, Cr.P.C.

Officer incharge can possibly invoke R. 24.4 of Police Rules, 1934, for reason strong and manifest after registration of First Information Report.

If a prima facie offence is made out, an investigation may ensue.

Reference by Governor State Bank of Pakistan is a very strong indication that a case of wilful default has been made out against defaulters but it is not definitive

National Accountability Bureau under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, inquires and investigates to see if a case of wilful default has been made out and if so only then a reference on account of wilful default under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, is filed.

Mere mistakes or technical lapses of Investigating Officer or prosecution should not be considered a ground for creating doubt.

Only those offences and violations can be investigated under S. 139 of Securities Act, 2015 which have been committed under the Securities Act, 2015 or any rules or regulations made thereunder.

Sections 139 & 137 of Securities Act, 2015 are procedural and can operate retrospectively.

Appellant was imposed upon a penalty as it and others while "acting in concert" had acquired 35% of the total issued voting shares of a company without making a public announcement of the offer under S. 5 of the Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance, 2002 (Takeovers Ordinance)

Validity

Violations pertained to the period when the Takeovers Ordinance was not repealed and was in operation, therefore, by virtue of Art. 264(c) of the Constitution and S. 6(c) of General Clauses Act, 1897 show-cause notice and impugned order were fully protected

Violations of the Takeovers Ordinance were not investigated under S. 139 of Securities Act, 2015, as argued by appellant, as a matter of fact violations of Takeovers Ordinance were exposed during the investigation, therefore, enquiry under S. 21 of Takeovers Ordinance was not necessary

Statements recorded during investigation could not be used as core evidence to penalize the appellant for violations of Takeovers Ordinance

Such statements could be treated as a relevant fact, therefore, to prove violations, the Commissioner was required to rely upon other corroborated and independent evidence

Words 'acquirer' and 'person' had been used interchangeably in the Takeovers Ordinance

Section 5 of the Takeovers Ordinance was applicable to all persons, who acted in concert and it was irrelevant whether all of them had purchased shares of the company with their own resources or funds provided by the appellant

Appellant and others could not be exonerated from the violation of S. 5 of the Takeovers Ordinance, whereby, they while acting in concert and without public announcement of the offer, had acquired 35% voting shares of the company

Appeal was dismissed.

If the prosecution case was fully established by the testimony of witnesses, having no motive for false implication of accused, fully corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries of incriminating articles and positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory, then mere failure or omission on the part of the Investigating Officer during investigation of the case could not be treated as sufficient to render the prosecution case doubtful or unworthy of belief.

Two co-accused persons who were real sons of accused had already been extended benefit of pre-arrest bail while that of the accused was declined

Validity

Complainant who was injured despite service of process, deliberately did not appear before District Standing Medical Board, which was indicated through a letter issued by Medical Superintendent

Re-examination of injured complainant could be done

Deliberate and evasive attitude of the examinee amounted to cover up the alleged fabrication of injury

When realities of prosecution's case were not clear and transparent, possibility of false involvement and implication of accused by way of fabrication of injuries and by levelling exaggerated allegations with mala fide intention and ulterior motive of complainant while throwing a widened net to the extent of accused could not be ruled out

Investigating officer was supposed to find out truth of the matter under investigation

Object of investigating officer was to discover actual facts of the case and to arrest real offender or offenders and not to commit himself prematurely to any view of facts for and against any person

Where investigating officer suspected that injuries were self-suffered, in order to further strengthen his opinion, besides an aggrieved party, investigating officer could invoke jurisdiction of Magistrate to exercise his power for reconstitution of District Standing Medical Board of Provincial Standing Medical Board

Case against accused was one of further inquiry

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Lapses on part of Investigating Agency as alleged by the defence had no substance as procedural defects or irregularities in the course of investigation would not damage the case of prosecution keeping in view the other evidence produced by the prosecution.

Petitioner was detained by Rangers Force for over 90 days and was being interrogated in blind FIRs whereafter, Rangers Authorities had issued "No Objection Certificate" regarding non-involvement of petitioner in other cases

Petitioner apprehended that he would be falsely involved in other criminal cases

Validity

For purposes of investigation "No Objection Certificate" was not requirement of law rather such right would always be available to investigate a suspect

No person would be a suspect unless there were some circumstances which could make him a suspect

Where circumstances justified arrest of suspect/accused in some other case/crime, same would not require "No Objection Certificate" from other Law Enforcement Agency

Investigating officer of other case/crime could proceed further with request of formal arrest of suspect and even could proceed for obtaining body (remand) of such suspect

If during course of investigation there had come facts of commission of another cognizable offence then police was under obligation to resort to such course (S. 154, Cr.P.C.) even without permission/No Objection of anybody unless registration of such FIR demanded so

Petitioner could not seek restraining order from High Court that no investigation could be carried out in all cases referred by petitioner

No investigation could be stopped by writ of Certiorari and writ of Mandamus which stated that authorities would act strictly in accordance with law

What law provided to adjudicate FIRs in question which were disposed of in 'A' Class, authorities were bound to investigate all such FIRs and to ensure that all culprits were arrested and arraigned

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Investigating officer was not to commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person.

National Accountability Bureau is to follow the procedure laid down in S.103 Cr.P.C. while conducting house search.

If there were certain minor discrepancies or some omissions on the part of investigation, keeping in view strong ocular testimony, the same could not be made basis for discarding the evidence of the eye-witnesses.

Minor discrepancies in the investigation, being least harmful to the case of prosecution, could be overlooked.

Investigation of a criminal case fell within the exclusive domain of the police and if on one hand independence of the judiciary was a hallmark of a democratic dispensation then on the other hand independence of the investigating agency was equally important to the concept of rule of law

Undue interference in each other's' role destroyed the concept of separation of powers and worked a long way towards defeating justice.

Investigation was to be completed without unnecessary delay, and where it was not completed within the period of 14 days from the date of recording of FIR; an interim report was to be forwarded to the court by the Public Prosecutor

In the present case, applicability of S.169, Cr.P.C., for discharge of accused was ruled out of consideration as in cross FIR, petitioner was also accused for similar offence

If one accused had been discharged as per report then the petitioner would also deserve to be treated in similar manner

Despite lapse of three years from the date of lodging of FIR, challan had not been put in court

Observations made in the impugned report were quashed by the High Court with direction that prosecution would submit challan before the court within a period of 14 days and Court to initiate trial in both the FIRs.

Anti Corruption Police was neither conferred with any power nor authority to investigate into a dispute regarding private lands, nor Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, permit the Anti Corruption Police to entertain any complaint with regard to the title dispute between the private parties.

Investigation of case does not mean that after registration of FIR truth has to be extracted from incriminating material

Investigation generally consists of steps: Proceedings on the spot; ascertaining facts/circumstances of case; discovery of arrest of suspended offender; collection of evidence relating to commission of offence and formation of opinion as to trial of the case

Investigating Officer is to send its final report to the court

Provisions relating to Ss. 157, 160 & 161, Cr.P.C. dealing with investigation have provided mechanism of check and balance so that a fair and impartial investigation is conducted within framework of such provisions and also without fear or nepotism and favoritism

Police officer was expected to act fairly, honestly and without any biases.