2001 PCrLJ 1919. Ghulam Murtaza V/S The State (Lahore)
Art.3/4 Pro.(EHO). S.156 CrPC. Police officer who was complainant had completed investigation of the case. All witnesses were police constables, who were subordinates to complainant/police officer. Investigation, in circumstances would result into mockery. BAIL GRANTED
S.21,25,76,29 & 51 Cont.of Nar.Subs.Act, 1997, Art.3 / 4 Pro.(EHO). For all practical purposes the search, recovery, arrest and most of the remaining steps in the investigation were all conducted and taken at the spot in such cases by the same Police Officer and the investigation was practically over and substantially completed before his return to the police station. Acting of the Police Officer as raiding officer, complainant and Investigating Officer at one and the same time, therefore, was neither illegal nor improper because the same was not only natural but also probably the only practical course available in the circumstances of the case and his rank in the police hierarchy in searching and arresting the accused was totally irrelevant to the legal validity of such a search and arrest. BAIL REFUSED
PLD 1997 SC 408 State through A.G. Sindh V/S Bashir Ahmed & Others (FB).
S.156 CrPC. Investigation into cognizable cases. No legal prohibition for a police officer to be a complainant if he is a witness to the commission of an offence and also to be an Investigating Officer so long as it does not, in any case, prejudice the accused person. (2) S.156 CrPC R/W Police Rules, 1934, Chapter XXV R-25. Para 3. Investigation into cognizable cases. Investigating Officer who is not a formal witness is very important witness not only for prosecution but also for the accused . Such police officer, however, is not expected to heading a raiding party, appearing as a witness, becoming complainant and lodging an FIR against the accused and then becoming an Investigating Officer of the same case.
2008 MLD 314. Abdul Majeed V/S The State (Karachi DB)
S.9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Contention of counsel for accused that Police Inspector, who was complainant of the case, could not act as Investigating Officer, was not reasonable and plausible as no law existed by which any restriction had been imposed on the police officer not to act as complainant and Investigating Officer at the same time. No embargo was placed on any Police Officer in whose presence an offence had been committed to act as Investigating Officer. BAIL REFUSED.
(b) Appreciation of Evidence (Investigation by Complainant)
1989 PCrLJ 601. Ashiq @ Kaloo V/S The State (FSC).
Art.4 Complainant himself being investigating officer, his investigation could be biased.
NLR 1996 SD 257. Muhammad Altaf V/S The State (FSC).
Art.3/4 Pro.(EHO). Evidence of I.O. cannot be rejected on ground that he was complainant also. For sustaining conviction on such evidence, it should be corroborated by independent evidence. Practice of I.O. becoming complainant is, however, deprecated. ACQUITTAL
NLR 1996 SD 268. Qaloo V/S The State (FSC).
Art.3/4 Pro.(EHO) An independent officer, not connected with crime or recovery, should be made I.O. so that investigation is not only conducted by an independent and impartial officer, but is also seen to be conducted as such. Investigation would not be independent and impartial when complainant becomes Investigating Officer. ACQUITTAL
NLR 1996 SD 305. Bashir Ahmed/Amir Ahmed V/S The State (FSC).
Art.3/4 Pro.(EHO). Law does not place any restriction on complainant becoming I.O. as law requires unbiased investigation, evidence of I.O. cum Complainant about incident requires corroboration from independent evidence for safe administration of justice. Uncorroborated evidence of I.O.-cum-Complainant which also suffers from infirmities cannot be made basis of conviction in a criminal case. ACQUITTAL
1998 PCrLJ 1462. Javed Akhtar V/S The State (Lahore DB).
S.9(b) Control of Nar. Substance Ord. Police officer (complainant) had also conducted investigation and submitted the challan against the accused and all the witnesses in the case being subordinate to him, prejudice had been caused to accused. ACQUITTAL
2005 MLD 966. Khaliq Jan V/S The State (Lahore)
S.9(c ) Control of Narcotic Substances Act. 1997. Police officer is not prohibited under the law to be a complainant if he is a witness to the commission of an offence and also to be an investigating officer.
1995 MLD 1237. Aksar Khan V/S The State (Peshawar).
S.13 Explosive Substances Act. Police Inspector could not legally assume dual function as a complainant and also as an investigator and such fact by itself had rendered the trial a sheer mockery. ACQUITTAL
NLR 1994 CrLJ 503. Muhammad Ajmal V/S The State (Lahore DB).
S.13 Arms Ord. Investigation of case by police officer who himself was complainant, would against principle of natural justice. ACQUITTAL
NLR 1995 CrLJ 22. Shoukat Ali V/S The State (Lahore).
S.13 Arms Ord. Evidence of S.I. as a recovery witness, would be unreliable when he was raiding party’s member, complainant and investigating officer. ACQUITTAL
PLD 2005 Karachi 128.Taj Wali & 6 Others V/S The State(DB)
S.9(c ) & 21 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Complainant was highly interest as he having detected offence, would like to see that accused was convicted. Complainant thus should not be made Judge of his own cause, his version should be investigated by another officer and a check could be placed on manipulation of evidence by complainant against innocent person which was very essential in present day's time. Activities of police officials who were themselves becoming complainants, witnesses and investigating officers should be checked and investigations of cases should be entrusted to officer superior to the complainant which act would ensure fair-play between parties. ACQUITTAL
PLD 2009 Karachi (DB) 191. Nazeer Ahmed V/S The State
S.9(c ) and 25 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. At the time of recovery from accused, investigating officer did not associate private persons as recovery witnesses and only relied upon his subordinates and furthermore he himself registered the complaint and investigated the case----Validity---Investigating officer of police or such other force, under S.25 of the 1997 Act, was not authorized to exclude independent witnesses nor it did away with principle of producing the best of available evidence. While keeping provisions of S.103 CrPC, which were salutary intact for searches in respect of all other things, the legislature considered it expedient to do away with requirement of calling upon respectable persons to attend and witness search in respect of narcotics. Provisions of S.25 were a departure from general law of land and appeared to be outcome of an expediency so as to give a free hand to police and other forces while dealing with cases involving narcotics. By exclusing applicability of S.103 CrPC in narcotic cases, leglislature had not conferred any additional or extra sanctity upon officers of police or such other forces. Seizing officer excluded independent persons to act as witnesses of arrest and recovery and chose two of his subordinates to act as attesting witnesses, who too did not support prosecution case. Seizing officer himself acted as investigating officer and trial court finding him innocent acquitted one of the two persons sent for trial. High Court declined to maintain conviction and sentence awarded to accused by trial court, as accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. APPEAL ALLOWED
2009 PCrLJ 1334. Agha Qais V/S The State (Lahore DB)
S.9(c ) CNS Act 1997. Investigating Officer being a neutral authority could not be a complainant and a witness in a case which he was investigating as was evident from Art.18 of Police Order 2002 and R.25.2(3) of the Police Rules 1934. Investigation in the case, therefore, was not fair, honest and transparent. Where an Investigating Officer had acted as a complainant and raiding officer, defence would be deprived of its very precious right and forced not to depend upon him. Non-production of the case property in the court was fatal to the prosecution case, which had destroyed its very foundation. Incriminating report of Chemical Examiner, basis of the prosecution case, having not been put to accused in his statement under S.342 CrPC, had deprived him of the opportunity to explain the said incriminating evidence. ACQUITTAL.
2: Investigations conducted by incompetent authority:
1997 PCrLJ 945. Mehboob Ali @ Booba V/S The State.
Art.4 Pro.(EHO). Recovery had been made from the house of accused by the CIA staff without obtaining any permission from a magistrate and as such they had no authority to embark upon the investigation. BAIL GRANTED
NLR 2002 SD 326. Gharibullah V/S The State (Peshawar)
S.9(3) Cont. of Nar. Subs. Act, 1997. Search and arrest f accused in a case U/S 9(3) conducted by police officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector would be illegal and would entitle accused to grant of bail even though accused could be charged under Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. BAIL GRANTED
2002 PCrLJ 1680. Gul Said V/S The State (Peshawar)
S.6,7,8,9,20,21 & 47 Cont.of Nar.Subs.Act, 1997. Arrest of accused who committed a non-bailable and cognizable offence. U/S 59 CrPC even a private person could arrest an accused who committed a non-bailable and cognizable offence in his sight or was a proclaimed offender. By virtue of S.47 of CNS Act, 1997, provisions of CrPC were made applicable to proceedings under that Act except as otherwise provided by the Act itself. If there was no express exclusion of S.59 CrPC and offences U/S 6,7,8 & 9 of CNS Act, 1997, being cognizable, arrest made by a person below the rank of Sub-Inspector could not be held violative of S.20 of CNS Act, 1997. Even if arrest, seize and search made by person below rank of Police Sub-Inspector, were held to be violative of S.21 of CNS Act, 1997, but requirement of S.154 CrPC whereunder FIRs were recorded, were met, did not preclude any person from reporting offence to Inspector of Police if it related to commission of cognizable offence, meaning thereby that any person could be competent complainant regarding an offence under CNS Act, 1997, of course, subject to investigation by authority/officer competent to investigate. Legality of search, seizure or arrest at bail stage would not be considered because bail applications were decided on basis of material available on record. BAIL REFUSED.
PLD 1998 Karachi 226. Abdul Razzaq Billoo V/S The State.
S.109/275/468/471 PPC. S.27(2) & 30(2) Drugs Act. FIR on basis of which proceedings had been initiated, having not been signed by the complainant, same was without lawful authority being not in accordance with law. Case against accused was lodged by Assistant Director FIA on the complaint of Federal Inspector Drugs, whereas according to Notification issued by Ministry of Interior & Narcotics Control vide SRO No.826(1)/97 dtd.20/9/97, S.468 & 471 PPC had been taken out from the Schedule and FIA had been excluded to investigate into the matter. S.274 & 275 PPC having never been included in the schedule, were also out of purview of FIA to investigate. S.30(2) Drugs Act, 1976 had made offence U/S 27(2) of Drugs Act, 1976, a non-cognizable one and also that no court other than Drugs Court would try an offence punishable under said provision. Alleged offence against accused being at the most punishable with 7 years, would fall out of prohibitory clause. Grant of bail to accused, in circumstances, was rule whereas refusal was an exception. Allegation against accused required further enquiry. BAIL GRANTED
2003 PCrLJ 789. Waqar Khan V/S The State (Karachi DB)
S.6/9 ( c) Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. Recovery of the narcotics having been made at the pointation of the accused himself by leading the police party to the place of recovery, it was not search of place and as such no search warrant was required to be obtained by the police officer from the court. Offence relating to narcotics could be tried only under the provisions of the CNS Act, 1997, in a Court established thereunder to the exclusion of the Court established under any other law. Seizure, search, arrest and investigation by a Police Officer inferior in rank to the rank of the Police Officer as required by the said act, is a curable irregularity and it would not affect the powers and jurisdiction of the court to try such case. Such irregularity would not vitiate the trial proceedings and the results thereof. Technicalities could not be permitted to stand in the way of the object and scheme of the law. Delay, if any, in dispatch of the stuff to the chemical examiner was not material when the defence had denied the recovery. Accused being in custody, delay in sending the report to the police station was not of much significane for the purpose of bail which was to be explained during the trial. BAIL REFUSED.
NLR 2003 CrLJ 689. Waqar Khan V/S The State (Karachi DB).
S.6, 9 ( c ) C.N.S.Act, 1997. Irregularity in seizure, search and arrest by Police Officer of inferior rank is curable irregularity. Such irregularity would not in any way affect the powers and jurisdiction of court to try case under this Act. (2) Irregularity in process of seizure, arrest and investigation of case U/S 6, 9 ( c ) does not affect the intrinsic quality of the evidence or competency or authority of court to try that offence if it is competent to try the same otherwise. Such irregularity never vitiates the trial proceedings and results thereof. (3) Seizure, search and arrest by incompetent Police Officer would not become valueless because of in-competency of Police Officer because it is never the intention of law to reduce to nullity any material evidence only for non-compliance with requirement as to rank of Police Officer. Held: (i) Treating the evidence of quality as nullity for having been obtained by officer of status inferior to the officer required to do that act will amount to defeating the scheme of law for technical reasons. (ii) Technicalities are not to be permitted to stand in the way of object and scheme of law which has to be achieved. (iii) If any substantial act is performed towards the achievement of the object of law in the way not exactly as required by the provisions of law, that does not become valueless. BAIL REFUSED.
2007 PCrLJ 89. Muhammad Farooq Khan V/S The State (Karachi DB)
S.51 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997.Art.18(4) Police Order 2002. Investigation - Entrustment - Procedure - After registration of FIR, investigation was entrusted to the staff of police station and not to investigation staff. Effect. Such entrustment of investigation being in clear violation of Art.18(4) of Police order, 2002, was patently illegal. Though such entrustment might not have the effect of vitiating the trial, the same would certainly damage fairness of investigation, one of the main objects sought to be achieved by Police Order, 2002, as well as credibility of the officer blatantly violating the law. Such officer would be exposing himself to disciplinary action and might also incur risk of penalty under Police Order, 2002. BAIL GRANTED.
2008 YLR 88. Muhammad Yousuf & another V/S The State (Karachi)
S.497, 54, 59 & 156(2) CrPC. S. 9, 21 & 22 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Counsel for accused had stated that accused were searched and property was allegedly recovered by the complainant who being ASI was not competent to do so in view of mandatory provisions of S. 21 and 22 of CNS Act 1997. Further contention of accused was that said provisions of law having been violated, accused was entitled to the concession of bail---Validity--- Cognizable offence was committed within the view of complainant who was ASI of police. Apart from his own powers under S.54 CrPC said complainant could arrest accused under S.59 CrPC even if he was not authorized to conduct the investigation or search under S.21 of the CNS Act 1997. Accused were arrested on the spot. Complainant/ASI produced them at the police station, lodged the FIR and then the investigation was conducted by Sub-Inspector who was competent to investigate the case. No illegality in circumstances was committed in arresting accused and seizing the property. Even otherwise, if investigation was conducted by an unauthorized officer, then S.156(2) CrPC would protect such proceedings. When the case was challaned and after taking its cognizance by the court, the irregularity in the investigation, would not affect the trial which would not be vitiated. Case against accused was fully supported by the prosecution witnesses and was corroborated by the Chemical Analyzer's report. BAIL REFUSED.
PLD 2008 Karachi 57.Abdali Shah V/S The State
S.6/98, 21 & 22 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Art.18 Police Order 2002. No officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector, according to S. 21 & 22 of the CNS Act 1997 could raid, search and arrest any person involved under the said Act and any action taken by such officer would make the proceedings null and void, as in the present case. Investigation of the case had been conducted in violation of Art.18, Proviso 4 & 155(c ) & (d) of the Police Order, 2002. Mashirnama of arrest had been prepared at the place of incident which had been made doubtful by the memo of recovery. No recovery had been effected from the person of accused, which had allegedly been effected from a Taxi and the same did not belong to accused. Accused was admitted to bail. BAIL GRANTED
2009 SCMR 291. The State V/S Abdali Shah
S.21 & 9 (c ) Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Investigation by an unauthorized officer is an irregularity---Investigation carried out in the case by an officer not authorized to do so is merely an irregularity, which is curable under S.537 CrPC. (2) Accused was apprehended by police during normal patrol duty and no raid was carried out by the police personnel and as such S.21 of the Act of 1997 was not applicable. Even otherwise policy party could not be expected to go in search of the officer entitled to arrest the accused being an ASI on his apprehension. BAIL CANCELLED.
1995 PCrLJ 199. Muhammad Arif V/S The State (Lahore DB).
S.302 PPC. S.156/537 CrPC. Investigation by incompetent police officer does not vitiate the trial and the irregularity is curable U/S 537 CrPC.
PLD 1995 Lahore (DB) 606. Iftikhar Ahmed @ Dani V/S The State.
S.156/157/551 CrPC. CIA staff, irrespective of their rank and status, can investigate cases only when entrusted by officer-in-charge of the police station to whom they are subordinate. Investigation of cases commenced by CIA of their own is illegal.
1997 PCrLJ 1775. Muhammad Afzal V/S The State (Quetta DB).
S.145(1) CrPC. The accused by conducting investigation by the CIA his trial by invoking the curative provisions of S.156 CrPC was held to have not vitiated. Investigating agency was under an obligation to establish whether the crime weapon was automatic or semi-automatic or what was its calibre for invoking the jurisdiction of the Special Court, but it failed to do so. However, no specific objection was taken by the accused regarding the jurisdiction of Trial Court and even if the pistol recovered from him was presumed to be neither automatic nor semi-automatic still he it can convict him and he was therefore not prejudiced even on this score. Testimony of Police Officer in the absence of any enmity or malafides on their part for false involvement of accused in the case, could not be brushed aside. Even otherwise the accused was apprehended while driving the vehicle on the road and it was not possible for the police to engage independent civilian persons. Normal contradictions pointed out in the evidence were not of any avail to prosecution as the same had not shaken its intrinsic worth. CONVICTION UPHELD
PLD 1997 SC 408. State through A.G. Sindh V/S Bashir Ahmed & Others (FB).
S.156 CrPC. Power to investigate cognizable offence. CIA personnel are not authorised to take cognizance of a cognizable offence and investigate the same U/S 156 CrPC.
1998 MLD 323. Inayatur Rehman V/S The State (FSC).
Art.2(g) S.2(e) & (2)(f) Dangerous Drugs Act II, 1930. Art.3/4 Pro. (EHO). Police officers attached with CIA did not lose their status as police officers and DSP being higher in rank than ASI/SHO was competent to initiate the investigation of the case pertaining to the cognizable offences under the Pro.(EHO) 1979. Inspector, CIA police being also superior in rank to ASI/Incharge of police station was competent to complete the investigation. Narcotics could be extracted from the opium recovered from the accused. Prosecution evidence was not contradictory and inspired confidence. Diggi of Scooter (Vespa) could easily contain 11 Kgs. of Opium. Allegation of enmity made by accused was an afterthought and was not proved by him. CONVICTION UPHELD
1998 PCrLJ 375. Haji Jannat Gul V/S The State (Karachi).
S.249-A/439 CrPC. S.161/163/165/342/34 PPC. Preliminary enquiry entrusted to Deputy Director, Anti-Corruption but he forwarded enquiry to his junior who was subordinate in rank to officer against whom he had conducted enquiry. Such enquiry was illegal, thus order of Special Judge in which enquiry was asked again to be conducted by Deputy Director, interest of complainant/petitioner was not prejudiced in any case. Special Judge in circumstances very rightly rectified previous order and for the time being very rightly discharged attendance of accused till receipt of final report from Deputy Director. Order of Special Judge being within legal ambit and did not call for interference by Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
1998 PCrLJ 828. Muhammad Ramzan V/S Muhammad Iqbal, S.I. (Lahore).
S.561-A CrPC. S.20, 21, 34, 35 & 47 Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. FIR recorded by S.I. sought to be quashed on the ground that according to Notification SRO 3318(1)/95, Sub. Inspector of Police was not legally authorised to conduct raid, arrest and to initiate proceedings against accused. S.21(2) of the Act, although provided condition precedent that S.I. must be notified through Notification to initiate proceedings under the Act and Notification No.3318(1)/95, also had revealed that Federal Government had authorised the officer not below the rank of Inspector of the Anti-Narcotic Force to initiate proceedings, but provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 did not provide penal consequences that where persons not duly authorised initiated proceedings under the Act, the same would be vitiated. In absence of penal consequences, provisions of S.2(2) of the Act of 1997, could not be said to be mandatory in nature. QUASHMENT REFUSED
1998 PCrLJ 958. Mrs. Surraya Farman V/S The State (Lahore).
S.154 CrPC. FIA. FIR. Report for registration of a case to conduct investigation into a cognizable offence falling within the jurisdiction of FIA is a report U/S 154 CrPC. (2) S.24(6) Emigration Ord.1979. S.18/22. No bar exists for the FIA to conduct an inquiry into the offence under Emigration Ord. 1979 and proceed against a person, but without a proper complaint by the specifically authorised person, proceeding in the court are a nulity. (3) Continuation of the proceedings, cognizance of which had been taken upon the police report and not on a complaint as provided U/S 24(6) of the Emigration Ord. 1979 was of no useful purpose. PROCEEDINGS QUASHED
1998 PCrLJ 1656. Wali Muhammad @ Waloo V/S The State (Karachi DB).
S. 3 & 5 STA Act. S.156 CrPC. Power to investigate a cognizable offence had been conferred on any officer incharge of police station having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such police station. CIA personnel was not officer incharge of police station having jurisdiction over local area within limits of police station who could investigate a cognizable offence nor CIA personnel were covered by the definition of the officer incharge of a police station as given in S.4 Cl.(p), CrPC. CIA personnel, in circumstances, were not empowered to investigate cognizable offence and submit challan in support thereof before the Special Judge STA.
1998 PCrLJ 1726. Nazeer Ahmed V/S The State (Lahore).
Art.199 Constitution. Order passed by Inspector General of Police under express direction of Chief Minister, quashed by the High Court as the Chief Minister is not conferred with any power to order transfer of investigation of a criminal case from one police officer to another.
1998 SCMR 1148. Kausar Irshad V/S The State (FB).
Art.3 Pro.(EHO). Recovery of heroin effected by CIA personnel in the case might be an irregularity but the same did not vitiate the trial. Discrepancies in the statements of recovery witnesses being minor were not sufficient to negate the recovery of huge quantity of heroin. CIA officials having no enmity against accused had no reason to plant said heroin on him. LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED
PLD 2000 SC 816. Muhammad Afzal V/S The State (FB).
S.13-E. Investigation conducted by CIA. Validity. CIA Personnel, despite knowing it very well that they were not empowered to investigate the case, had done so deliberately violating the provisions of S.156 CrPC. Although CIA personnel had prior information about the offence which was likely to be committed, yet they had not passed on this information to the concerned police and took upon themselves the task of investigation which was in violation of law and against the principle of supremacy of law ACQUITTAL
NLR 2001 SD 164. Ahmad Hussain V/S The State (SC.FB).
S.302/34 PPC. Investigation of the case by SP CIA who himself was complainant would be unquestionable when accused have not been able to show any prejudice caused to them by such investigation. LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED
2001 PCrLJ 146.Iftikhar Hussain & Others V/S Government of Pakistan & Others (Lahore DB).
S.409/420/468/471/109 PPC. Quashing of FIR. Accused had contended that FIA being a Federal Agency which could only operate and take action in respect of offences concerning Federation or Federal Government, was not empowered to register case against accused who was Chairman/Managing Director of Bank of Punjab as said matter fell within exclusive domain of Province. Contention of accused was repelled because Bank of Punjab, on its own application, had been declared to be a Scheduled Bank by State Bank of Pakistan under State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956 which was a Federal statute. Bank of Punjab, as a scheduled Bank, was amenable to control and supervision of State Bank under State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956 and Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, both of which were Federal subjects. At time when acts complained against accused were said to have been committed through Bank of Punjab of which accused was an employee, the Bank was not a scheduled Bank, but at time when complaint was made and case was registered by FIA against accused, said Bank had become a scheduled Bank and was amenable to control of State Bank of Pakistan to which Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 had been made applicable. Registration of case against accused, matters of inquiry and investigation and even forum of trial were purely procedural in nature and laws could be retrospectively applicable. FIA, therefore, had jurisdiction in the matter.
2001 MLD 1096.Muhammad Akram V/S SSP Abbottabad & 6 Others (Peshawar).
S.452 PPC.S.154, 156, 169, 551 & 561-A. SSP on application of the accused directed the Inspector Complaint Cell to conduct enquiry in the case of the accused. Inspector in his report found the accused innocent and on basis of said report case was sent to the Judicial Magistrate for its cancellation and to discharge the accused U/S 169. Complainant had sought to quash said inquiry report and subsequent orders for cancellation of case against the accused. Under provisions of Crpc, there was no scope for constitution of any Complaint Cell and the Cell had no competency to encroach upon the powers of the Court. Once the case was registered u/s 154 CrPC the officer incharge of the police station was required to investigate the same U/S 156. Police had no jurisdiction to ask the court for cancellation of any case or to release the accused U/S 169 CrPC but police was bound to submit complete challan in the court of competent jurisdiction for the trial of the accused and nothing more. Inquiry Officer of the Complaint Cell had no power to nullify the investigation of any criminal case conducted by or under the authority of officer incharge of the police station. Police had no authority to decide the case before its presentation before the competent court.
2001 SCMR 505.Ahmad Hassan & another V/S The State (FB).
S.302/34 PPC. Very basis for registration of prosecution case depended upon the recovery of the dead body from the Diggi, crime empties, crime weapons at the instance of the accused, voluntary surrendering and subsequent arrest of accused and these pieces of evidence being the connecting links were the natural relevant factors for registration of the FIR which could not be said to have been lodged after preliminary investigation, consultation and deliberation. No prejudice having been caused to the accused in the investigation conducted by SP CIA as such contention that he merely being complainant in the case was incompetent to be as Investigating Officer, had no force. LEAVE REFUSED
2001 MLD 1871. Khurshid Anwer V/S Nighat Raza & 5 Others (Karachi)
Officers of the Army Monitoring Team had only power or authority in relation to monitoring, but could not pass any order or give directions. No officer of the police should allow himself to be dictated by unlawful orders even of their superior officers, for, if they would act on unlawful orders of their superiors, they would be personally liable. Army Monitoring Team or for that matter any person in uniform could not direct the Police Officers to act in any manner otherwise, than in due process of law.
2001 NLR 649. Imran Saeed V/S The State (Abbottabad)
S.489-B PPC. Investigation by investigating officer would be deemed to have been carried out dishonestly when investigating officer combined in himself the duties of complainant, investigating officer and witness which caused prejudiced to accused. (2) There is no legal prohibition to a police official to be a complainant, a witness to commission of offence and also to be an investigating officer, so far as it does not, in any manner, prejudice the accused person. ACQUITTAL
NLR 2001 SD 455. Abdul Sattar V/S The State (FSC).
Art.3, 4 Pro.(EHO). Significant fact to be considered arising whether investigation by complainantof CIA Police had caused serious prejudice to right of accused or not. The complainant not making an effort of securing the services of independent witnesses and his immediate subordinates who were in his company at relevant time made to act as mashirs of recovery only. Complainant not stating that any effort was made to enlist services of some independent witnesses. This fact when examined from point of view that SHO concerned was neither cited as witness nor examined in trial leading to position that complainant of CIA police had created one man show in challenging accused and producing his subordinates only as the only witnesses of recovery. In circumstances, at least one person from police station could have been produced as a witness to independently satisfying the fact about time and place of recovery by CIA staff. FSC accepting appeal and setting aside conviction as not sustainable in law.
NLR 2002 SD 896. Abdul Sattar V/S The State (FSC)
Art.4 Pro.(EHO) S.156(1) CrPC. Investigation of a case by CIA police without authorization from the SHO to concerned police station would be violative of S.156(1). Such illegal investigation of a case by CIA police would cause prejudice to accused when recovery memo was witnessed by CIA officials without citing an independent witness of the recovery. (2) case registered for offence U/Art.4 on complaint of SI of CIA. Complainant SI, CIA himself investigating the case and his subordinate CIA officials made to act as mashirs of recovery. SHO of concerned police station also neither cited as witness nor examined in trial. Held: (i) CIA had created one man show in challaning accused and producing his subordinates only as witnesses although at least one person from police station could have been produced as a witness to recovery, (ii) Such kind of practice on the part of CIA should be discouraged and conviction based on such illegal investigation should not be supported by superior judiciary in order to advance the principle of safe dispensation of justice. CONVICTION SET-ASIDE.
PLD 2002 Lahore (DB) 200.Muhammad Hanif V/S The State
S.9© Cont. of Nar. Subs.Act, 1997. Although the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police was not competent to investigate the case, yet it would not vitiate the decision on merits as the case otherwise stood proved against the accused. No prejudice had been caused to the accused by the arrest and recovery of opium by the ASI which had not resulted into any miscarriage of justice. SENTENCE REDUCED.
PLD 2002 SC 768. Mubarik Masih & another V/S The State (FB)
S.302/34 PPC. Accused raised the plea that the police official from Crimes Investigation Agency was not competent to investigate the case, hence the investigation was without lawful authority. Validity. No question in this respect was put to the I.O. at the trial regarding his competency in the matter. No prejudice whatsoever had been caused to the accused as they were given fair opportunity by the trial court after framing of charge. Plea raised by the accused was repelled by Supreme Court. DEATH SENT. MAINTAINED.
PLD 2005 Karachi 528. Mukhtiar Ali & 3 Others V/S The State
S.155(2) CrPC. Investigation conduct by una;uthorized officer. Effect. If investigation in a case was conducted by an officer who was not authorized by law or permitted by Magistrate, then it would not vitiate the trial if no prejudice was caused to the accused. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pld 2006 Peshawar 74. Muhammad Daud V/S The State (DB0
S.9(c ), 21, 22, 25 & 29 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Search and seizure proceedings. Prosecution had established factum of recovery beyond shadow of doubt. Arrest, seizure and investigation by an incompetent police officer would not vitiate whole trial and at the best such an irregularity could be cured U/S 537 CrPC and that would cause no prejudice to accused. SENTENCE REDUCED.
2007 PCrLJ 815. Ashraf Gul & another V/S The State (FSC DB)
Art.3 & 3 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. S.9 © Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Accused persons had admitted in his cross-examination that the police had no enmity towards them. Counsel for accused was unable to pinpoint as to what prejudice had been caused to accused persons by investigation carried out by CIA personnel. FIR could be lodged by anyone, if it related to a cognizable offence. CIA personnel, though were not duly authorized by competent Authority under subsection (1) of S.156 CrPC but that irregularity could be regularized under subsection (2) thereof by necessary implication. Proceedings would not stand vitiated, in circumstances. APPEAL DISMISSED.
2007 SCMR 393.Mohammad Younas & Others V/S Mst. Perveen @ Mano & Others
S.21 & 22 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. S.173 CrPC. Arrest of accused and/or seizure of narcotics in violation of provisions of S.21 & 22. Effect. Guilt or innocence of accused would not depened on question of competence or otherwise of Police Officer to investigate offence. Trial of accused would not be vitiated merely for the reasons that the case had been investigated by an officer not authorized to do so. Court would determine guilt or innocence of accused only on basis of evidence produced irrespective of the manner in which it was brought before the Court. Purpose of enacting such provisions stated. PETITION ALLOWED.
NLR 2007 SD 665. Ashraf Gul & another V/S The State (FSC.DB)
S.9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Conviction/sentence recorded against accused under S.9(c) by trial court would not be vitiated on ground of irregularity that investigation of case was conducted against them by CIA in ciolation of S.156 CrPC. Such irregularity which has caused no prejudice to accused is curable and would not vitiate the trial. (2) S.156(1)(2) CrPC. CIA personnel not duly authorised by competent authority under S.156(1) would not be cometent to investigate case under S.9 of the 1997 Act. This irregularity would not vitiate the trial, conviction/sentence recorded against accused as such irregularity may be regulated under sub-section (2) of S.156 by necessary implications and as such proceedings would not stand vitiated. CONVICTION UPHELD.
PLD 2008 Lahore 103. Muhammad Azam V/S Inspector General of Police (DB)
(2) S.154 CrPC. Second FIR recording of --- Where a different, opposite or a cross version disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, is put forth by the complainant, second FIR is not barred. (2) S. 302/324 PPC. Single Bench of High Court in a constitutional petition had directed to entrust the investigation of the entire occurrence to a senior officer in FIA not below the rank of a Director FIA. Two persons had lost their lives and five persons were seriously injured in the said occurrence. Grievance of the appellant was that the existing FIR under the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, was not competent to investigate the existing FIR as offences mentioned in the FIR were not included in the Schedule on the date when impugned order was passed i.e. 15-7-2003. Schedule was amended on 18-2-2004 and S.302 PPC stood included therein. Likewise inquiry prior to registration of an FIR was not contemplate under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly where a different, opposite or a cross version was put forth by the complainant which had disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, second FIR was not barred. SHO concerned was directed in circumstances to register second FIR on the complaint of the appellant, investigation of which was further directed to be conducted by the local police instead of FIA as required under the Police Order, 2002 taking into account the mandate and provision of Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules 1934. APPEAL ALLOWED.
2008 PCrLJ 751. Sh. Zahid Javed V/S The State (Lahore DB)
S.9(c ), 21 & 25 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Contention of the counsel for accused that case against accused ought to be disbelieved merely for the reason that raid had been conducted by an ASI in violation of CNS Act 1997 had no merit. FIR itself revealed that after conducting raid and effecting recovery of the contraband, the matter had been referred to the Incharge Investigation of the concerned police station for further investigation. Provisions of S.25 of the 1997 Act, provided a complete answer to objection that while effecting recovery, provisions of S.103 CrPC had not been followed. Trial court was to see as to why delay had been occasioned in dispatching the sealed parcels to the Chemical Examiner and what would be its effect. Contention of counsel for accused that CIA personnel could not carry out a raid, was also devoid of any merit inasmuch as nothing was in law which stopped said personnel to enforce the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Accused stood involved in as many as sixteen criminal cases out of which at least one dozen were drug related cases. BAIL REFUSED.
2008 SCMR 1254. Zafar V/S The State
S.9(c ) Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Complainant as Investigating Officer--- During search 11 kilograms of opium was recovered from accused and he was convicted and sentenced by trial court for imprisonment for life, which was maintained by High Court. Plea raised by accused was that complainant himself was Investigating Officer and all prosecution witnesses were officials of Anti-Narcotic Force----Validity----Police Officer was not prohibited under the law to be a complainant, if he was a witness of an offence. Such officer could also be an Investigating Officer, so long as it did not prejudice accused person. Though IO and other prosecution witnesses were employees of ANF, they had no animosity or rancor against accused to plant such a huge quantity of narcotic material upon him. Witness had passed the test of lengthy cross-examination but defence failed to extract any material contradiction fatal to prosecution case. APPEAL DISMISSED.
2008 MLD 1162. Muhammad Hassan Khan V/S The State (Lahore)
S.9(c ) Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Even otherwise, if the statement of Investigating Officer was excluded, still sufficient material was available on record in the shape of statements of recovery witnesses against the accused. CONVICTION UPHELD.
PLJ 2008 Lahore 237. Akbar Ali V/S Additional Sessions Judge
S.156(2) CrPC. Criminal proceedings cannot take place in presence of pendency of civil suit. Police has statutory right to investigate --- Validity --- No proceedings of a police officer in any case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered U/S 156 CrPC to investigate. Held: Order of Justice of Peace was set-aside. Police departments were directed to complete investigation in accordance with law and submit final report before the competent court within stipulated period. PETITION ALLOWED.
3: Dishonest /Defective Investigations:
1998 PCrLJ 56. Mst. Masood Begum V/S Muhammad Maroof & 2 Others (Lahore).
S.302/34 PPC. Police officers assuming the role of trial court, critising the conduct of the witnesses and the deceased, judging the admissibility of dying declaration and the possibility of the injuries received by the deceased in some other manner, had disbelieved the story of FIR which was amply supported by two PWs and medical evidence. Police officers were not supposed to make detailed scrutiny of evidence at pre-trial stage and reject the prosecution evidence which action on their part being in departure from the principles was neither fair nor justified. Allegations made in the FIR supported by direct evidence could not be kept out of consideration at bail stage for the reason that a second statement of the deceased lady was not recorded during the period she remained in hospital. Deceased, a young lady of 17 years,
Continued could not be imagined to have taken her own life to implicate the accused in a false case, and, thereforem the artificial suspicion created by the police to exonerate the accused from the charge and followed by the Sessions Court on the face of it was ridiculous and full of perversity. Witnesses named in the FIR lodged on the statement of deceased, had fully corroborated the version of the FIR and thus the case did not apparently require further enquiry into the guilt of accused. BAIL RECALLED
2008 PCrLJ 1581. Allah Ditta V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302 PPC. Statements of the two eye-witnesses introduced by the complainant at behlated stage were not worthy of credence, because the complainant and his counsel had stated in clear terms before the High Court that the killing was an unwitnessed event and the said eye-witnesses had been introduced on the dishonest and wrong advice of the first Investigating Officer. Ignoring the said statements of the eye-witnesses, there was not an iota of evidence against the accused to connect him with the charge of murder and sodomy. High Court, thus, was left with no other option but to allow bail to the accused and he was admitted to bail accordingly. High Court, however was not supposed to leave the aggrieved persons at the mercy of the police. Investigation of a criminal case launched mala fide or dishonestly or for some consideration extraneous to the record, was open to correction by High Court under the inherent and constitutional jurisdiction. Investigation conducted by the first investigator was dishonest and mala fide and, therefore, High Court taking notice under the said jurisdiction directed the Inspector General of police to entrust the investigation of the case to a team of honest and upright senior police officers and to initiate legal proceedings against the said first investigator, who had submitted the challan in hot haste without collecting evidence after having joined hands with the accused, in such circumstances it would be a futile exercise to proceed with the trial of accused. Proceedings, therefore, were stayed before the Sessions |Court till completion of the investigation as directed. BAIL GRANTED
2002 PCrLJ 440. Nazar Hussain V/S The State (Lahore DB)
S.21,25,76,29 & 51 Cont.of Nar.Subs.Act, 1997, Art.3 / 4 Pro.(EHO).S.154/156 CrPC. Personality of the Police Officer was not divisible for the purposes of Ss.59 & 154 CrPC., Art.3 & 4 of the Pro.(EHO), 1979, and S.9(b) of the Cont. of Nar.Subs.Act, 1997 and such a fictional divisibility did not depend merely upon the rank of such an officer in the police hierarchy. Even if the said Police Officer was not competent or authorized to search and arrest the accused or conduct the investigation in the case still the actions taken by him might not stand vitiated as according to S.156(2) CrPC no proceedings of a Police Officer could be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered to investigate. Control of Nar. Substances Act, 1997, had not provided a penalty for non-observance of the provisions of S.21, therefore, transforming an otherwise directory provision into a mandatory one and thus, such a defect in the search, arrest and investigation might be termed as only an irregularity and not an illegality vitiating the entire process. BAIL REFUSED.
2008 MLD 501. Muhammad Rafiq V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302/148/149 PPC. Private complaint disclosed that police being in league with the accused had neither correctly recorded the FIR nor made a fair and honest investigation, with the result that all the accused, despite death of complainant’s father and presence of injuries on the bodies of different persons as well as availability of Medico-legal reports and post-mortem report, had been declared innocent and case was recommended to be consigned as untraced. Due to mala fide investigation complainant was free to file the private complaint, but the same did not show as to which part of the FIR was incorrect. Discrepancy in the contents of the FIR and the private complaint, prima facie, had made the case against the accused one of further inquiry. BAIL GRANTED.
1998 PCrLJ 648. Muhammad Mubarak V/S The State (Karachi DB).
S.13(d) Arms Ord. Contention of prosecution that if there was any fault or shortcoming in the search made by police party or in investigation, the the benefit of same would be given to the accused at the time of final disposal of the case after entire prosecution evidence was examined and court had come to the conclusion that evidence adduced by prosecution was not satisfactory and plausible beyond any doubt, but such benefit could be given to accused at bail stage, was repelled in view of principle laid down by Supreme Court in case reported in PLD 1972 SC 277.
1995 MLD 1999. Muhammad Nasir & another V/S The St
0 Comments