تبدیلی تفتیش کے موضوع پر لاہور ہائیکورٹ کا انتہائی اہم فیصلہ

 2023 PCrLJ 1

It is trite that where there is conflict between the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the one rendered by the Larger Bench prevails.

In the context of Article 18A of the Police Order 2002, the DSB, RSB and the Review Board are obligated to formulate their recommendations in such a manner that it shows that they have duly examined the case file and considered the material placed before them. The Inspector General’s SOPs dated 24.4.2014 also cast this duty on the DSB and RSB but, in view of the law discussed above, the Review Board has the same obligation.

Article 18A expressly requires the Heads of the District Police and the Regional Police Officers to record reasons when the recommendations of the DSB and the RSB, as the case may be, are placed before them. This statutory duty would not be discharged by simply reproducing those recommendations. The order must demonstrate due application of mind by them otherwise it would be regarded arbitrary and struck down.

Neither the Code nor the Police Rules, 1934, provide any procedure for transfer of investigation of a criminal case from one police officer to the other. This lacuna came to be exploited so when the Police Order 2002 was promulgated to reconstruct and regulate the police, 3 certain provisions were made to rectify the situation. Subsequently, the Police Order (Amendment) Act, 2013 (XXI of 2013), enacted Article 18A and introduced a new regime for transfer of investigation of criminal cases.

The administrative authorities must exercise their powers in accordance with law. “Where a statute empowering an administrative authority contains a provision of appeal, revision or review, it is statutory and can be availed of by an aggrieved party. The superior authority or the authority which had decided the matter will exercise such statutory power and grant an appropriate relief to the applicant.” 6If it comes to discretion, every authority, whether original, appellate or revisional, must exercise it reasonably and fairly. The courts may set aside an action in exercise of the power of judicial review if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, unreasonable or perverse.

Section 173 Cr.P.C. mandates that every investigation should be completed without unnecessary delay. It further states that as soon as it is done the officer in-charge of the police station shall forward a report (through the Public Prosecutor) in the prescribed form to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. If the investigation is not finalized within 14 days from the date of registration of the FIR, the officer in-charge of the police station shall, within three days thereafter, forward an interim report (through the Public Prosecutor) to the magistrate in the prescribed form stating the result of the investigation made until then. The court should then immediately commence the trial unless there are reasons to postpone it.