Petitioner is a permanent resident of Chak No, 116 Ladhar, District Sheikhupura, but is residing at Lahore in connection with her service. On 22.4.2003, she was in Chak No, 116 alongwith her husband for arranging harvest of wheat crop when Respondents Nos, 5 to 7, armed with lethal weapons, trespassed into her house and truthlessly murdered her husband Liaqat Ali and Ghulam Nabi, a cousin of her husband, by their fire-arm weapons. The incident resulted into registration of criminal case vide FIR No, 93/2003 with Police Station Sadar Sangla Hill under Sections 302, 148, 149 PPC, whereas offence under Sections 452, 380, 109 PPC were subsequently added. Initially the case was investigated by the local police and thereafter it was investigated by ASP, Sangla Hill Circle. For the third time, investigation was handed over to Range Crime, Sheikhupura, on the recommendation of committee constituted under Punjab Police Order, 2002. Range Crime, after due investigation, found the nominated accused persons guilty of the alleged offence and recommended their arrest, recovery of weapons and submission of challan in accordance with law.
2. It is complained that Respondent No, 1 for the fourth time on the application of accused persons directed investigation of the case by Investigation Branch, Punjab Lahore, vide his order dated 24.2.04 (Annex-B) without assigning any reason whatsoever. It is contended that Respondent o. 1 could not order investigation of the case for the fourth time, especially when the case was investigated on the recommendations of committee constituted under Section 18 of the Punjab Police Order, 2002. It was further submitted that Respondent No, 1 has assigned -no reason for reinvestigation of the case and through a sketchy order an unlawful reinvestigation has been derived, thus the same is liable to be struck down.
3. Heard. Record perused. Investigation of any criminal case has now to be transferred on the basis of touchstone given by Section 18(6) of the Punjab Police Order, 2002, which reads as under: "18(6) Investigation shall not be changed except after due deliberations and recommendations by a board headed by an officer not below the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police and two Superintendents of police, one being in charge of the investigation of the concerned district: Provided that the final order for the change of investigation shall be passed by head of investigation in the general police area who shall record reasons for change of such investigation: Provided further that the second change of investigation may only be allowed with the approval of the .Provincial Police Officer, or the Capital City Police Officer, as the case may be."
4. In the instant case, undeniably, initial investigation was done by the local police, which was concurred/counter affirmed by the ASP, Sangla Hill Circle. Then the case was reinvestigated by Range Crime, Sheikhupura, to whom it was entrusted under Section 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002, by the committee constituted thereunder. A thorough investigation was made and the accused persons were found guilty by each of the Investigating Officer above referred. Under law, there is no further scope of any investigation, but Respondent No, 1 illegally opted this exercise through the. order impugned dated 24.2.2004, which reads as follows: "The Inspector General of Police Punjab has directed that investigation of the subject case is hereby transferred to Investigation Branch, Punjab, Lahore."
The order of Respondent No, 1 demonstrates that he did not apply his conscious judicial mind to the case before passing the order and at the same time, he has not given any reason, in support thereof. Respondent No, 1 has also not considered the provisions of Police Order, 2002, whereunder he could not do it, for the fourth time and that too without seeking any recommendations from the committee so constituted. The order of Respondent No, 1 was assailed before the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, but he also undertook the same exercise, which was done by Respondent No, 1.
Learned Sessions Judge though has given a one line finding that Respondent No, 1 has authority to transfer the investigation, but he has also not referred to any provision of law and has given no reason whatsoever for such finding. Non-speaking order of Respondent No, 1 which offends provisions of Police Order, 2002, cannot be allowed to be maintained at law, a reference in this behalf, can be made to the cases of PLD 2002 Lahore 619 and PLJ 2004 Criminal Cases (Lahore) 130.
5. For what has been discussed above, I am constrained to hold that order of Respondent No, 2 is illegal, void and contrary to mandatory provisions of law and thus the same is declared as prayed and consequently instant writ petition succeeds with no order as to costs.