-Charge against accused was framed, investigation after commencement of trial could not have been ordered-

PLJ 2022 Lahore 127

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 199--Order for re-investigation of case--Commencement of trial--Framing of charge--Commencement of trial was not denied by Respondent No. 8--Charge against accused was framed, investigation after commencement of trial could not have been ordered--Memo. dated 20.05.2021 circulated by office of Respondent No. 8 is hereby declared as illegal, without lawful authority having no legal affect--Petition allowed. [Pp. 128 & 129] A & B

2014 SCMR 1488 ref.

Mr. Muhammad Sharif Karkhi Khaira, Advocate for Petitioner.

Maher Imtiaz Hussain Mirali, Assistant Advocate General for Respondent.

Mr. Muhammad Younas Sheikh, Advocate for Respondent
No. 8.

Date of hearing: 15.6.2021.

PLJ 2022 Lahore 127
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Sardar Ahmed Naeem, J.
MANZAR ABBAS--Petitioner
versus
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE
and 7 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 7766 of 2021, decided on 15.6.2021.

Order

Through this petition filed in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner challenges the memo/order served upon the petitioner by Respondent No. 6 suggesting/ indicating the re-investigation of case F.I.R. No. 115 dated 05.08.2020, registered at Police Station Havali Koranga, Khanewal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at some length and concluded with the submission that after the commencement of trial, transfer of investigation was impermissible under the law.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 8 opposed this petition with vehemence and submitted that the privilege of the Investigating Agency cannot be curtailed as submission of report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. can be submitted at any stage of the trial, thus, the petition was liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard. Available record perused.

5. A review of the record demonstrates that the petitioner is nominated accused of case mentioned above and challenged the vires of the direction of Respondent No. 8. The memo. dated 20.05.2021 signed by Respondent No. 8 is available on record as Annexure-C. Commencement of trial was not denied by Respondent No. 8. The charge against the accused was framed on 07.05.2021, thus, the investigation after the commencement of trial could not have been ordered. Reliance, in this respect, can be placed on (2014 SCMR 1488). The relevant observations of their lordships can be reproduced advantageously, which read as under:

“It would be seen that as per settled law, there is no bar to the reinvestigation of a criminal case and the police authorities are at liberty to file a supplementary challan even after submission of the final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. However this cannot be done after the case has been disposed of by the learned trial Court (see Bahadur Khan (Supra) Similarly there is no cavil to the proposition that a Court of law is not bound by the Ipsi Dixit of the police. authorities and rather should formulate its own independent views irrespective of the investigation whether or not to charge the accused with a particular crime. Seen in this view of the matter, perhaps no exception can be taken to the Judgment of the learned High Court which has held as such i.e. that a charge under Section 380, P.P.C. can also be framed against the accused if sufficient material is placed on the record which would convince the

learned trial Court to do so. However this aspect does not debar the police authorities from carrying out further investigation in the case. In this regard reference can be made to Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 (Supra).

6. Seeking guidance from the observations of their lordships and respectfully following the same, the writ is issued and the memo. dated 20.05.2021 circulated by the office of Respondent No. 8 is hereby declared as illegal, without lawful authority having no legal affect.

(Y.A.)  Petition allowed