' The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:-- "In view of the above submission, it is most respectfully prayed that the respondent No,1 may very kindly be directed to conduct the investigation himself in the interest of justice."
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondent No,2 is not investigating the matter fairly and justly. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an application before respondent No,1 for transfer of investigation but respondent No,1 has not passed any order on his application. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition. He further submits that it is duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the applications of the citizens without fear, favor and nepotism.
3. The learned Law Officer submits that the Constitutional petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has filed Constitutional Petition No,4591 of 2004 for transfer of investigation of the case in question, which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 1-4-2004. The respondents failed to comply with the direction of this Court. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Contempt Petition No,636/W of 2004. Thereafter respondent No,1 transferred the investigation to respondent No,2.
Respondent No,2 is also not investigating the matter fairly and justly as alleged by the counsel of the petitioner. The petitioner is not satisfied with any of the Investigating Officer, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is settled principle of law that Constitutional petition is not maintainable in the presence of alternative remedy. The petitioner has alternative remedy by virtue of section 22-A newly-added in Criminal Procedure Code vide (6)(ii), therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Karachi High Court in Ghulam Ali alias Sadoro and others v. S.H.O. Police Station Veehar, District Larkana and others 2003 YLR 2168. It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character. The petitioner himself filed earlier Constitutional petition, which was allowed and consequently investigation was transferred. This is second Constitutional petition qua the same allegation, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favor of the petitioner as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1973 SC 236.
It is settled proposition of law that it is not only the duty of the Investigating Agency to investigate the matter in such a manner to connect the accused persons with the commission of offence but it is also the duty of the Investigating Agency to investigate the matter in such a manner to bring the truth on the surface to save the innocent persons from the endless agony of investigation and trial.
It is pertinent to mention here that the police has no authority whatsoever, to acquit the accused persons. The duty of the police is only to collect the evidence and thereafter it is the job of the Courts either to acquit or convict the accused person; therefore, it is a dangerous trend to file Constitutional petitions during the intermediate stages qua the transfer of the investigation, which is not healthy sign and the cases cannot be concluded and both the parties will suffer irreparable loss. The question of law has been dealt with by this Court in the following judgments:-- ' Abdul Latif's case 1999 PCr.LJ 1357 and Iftikhar Ahmad's case 1999 PCr.LJ 1831.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.