1. ' AZIZULLAH M. MtMON, J.---Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. ' S.H.O. Shandadpur Police Station District Sanghar submitted application dated 2-3-2006 before learned Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shandadkot, praying therein that accused Abdul Rahim alias Abdul Karim son of Illahi Bux by caste Depar and Muhammad alias Ghulam Hyder son of Wahid Bux by caste Depar, residents of village Bhawand Lakha, Taluka Kamber were required by the said S.H.O. For investigation in police Crime No,11 of 2006 for offence under sections 302, 504, 34 and 109, P.P.C.; he further stated therein that said accused persons were already in judicial custody for allegedly committing offence under F.I.R. No,44 of 2006 and separate F.I.R. No,50 of 2006 of Police Station, Kamber and were lodged at sub jail Kamber; thus, he made a prayer that, for the purposes of carrying out investigation in the above stated case F.I.R. No,11 of 2006 Police Station, Shandadpur District Sanghar, custody of both the said accused persons was required by him.
3. ' Vide order dated 20-3-2006 learned Sessions Judge. Kamber-Shandadkot allowed the said application in terms. (sic) "the said S.I.O. Has also produced such permission from his higher officials for getting the custody of the accused. Hence his request is accorded. The custody of the above mentioned accused is handed over to S.I.O. Mr. Abdul Hakeem Sahito for seven days from the date of obtaining custody from sub-jail Kamber". The S.I.O. Was further directed to keep the said accused in safe custody.
4. ' S.I.O. Mr. Abdul Hakeem Sahito of the investigation branch of Police Station, Shandadpur submitted yet another application dated 9-3-2006 for permission to hand over the custody of the accused "Abdul Hakeem alias Abdul Karim and Muhammad alias Ghulam Hyder"; vide order dated 9-3- 2006 learned Sessions Judge passed the following order:- "Applicant SIP Shandadpur District Sanghar Mr. Abdul Hakeem Sahito has appeared and requested for custody of accused Abdul Raheem alias Abdul Karim son of Illahi Bux and Muhammad alias Ghulam Hyder son of Wahid Bux.
5. ' On 2-3-2006, the custody of the above mentioned accused were handed over to the said SIP on his similar request. Although, the custody of the accused was handed over for the period of 7 days and such fact was not mentioned by the applicant Abdul Hakeem before the learned Civil Judge and JM Shandadpur and in spite the fact, the accused persons were given for 7 days in his custody but he requested therefor the custody of accused persons for the period of 14 days. What is more, on 8-3-2006, he got further remand of the accused persons from the Civil Judge and JM Shandadpur since 13-3-2006. The F.I.R. Bearing No,11 of 2006 was earlier produced by the said SIO but the same was not legible copy. A legible copy of the F.I.R. Was seemed today, to which the name of the accused persons was shown as Muhammad son of Wahid Bux and Abdul Raheem son of Illahi Bux. The record of this Court showing that actual name of accused persons are Ghulam Hyder son of Wahid Bux and Abdul Kareem son of Illahi Bux. The said SIO was asked reason for making misstatement, to which he stated that witnesses have disclosed that they are same persons. The said SIP has caused a great misconduct at the time of getting the custody of accused persons from this Court so also obtaining remand from the Court of Civil Judge and JM Shandadpur. In the existing circumstances, the SIO is directed to hand over the custody of accused persons to the Superintendent Sub-Jail, Kamber without further delay. However, the fact mentioned by the said S.I.O. Regarding identification of the accused persons by him before this Court, he is directed to bring some credible evidence that the name of the accused persons as according to his contentions i.e, Muhammad alias Ghulam Hyder son of Wahid Bux and Abdul Raheem alias Abdul Kareem son of Illahi Bux. In case, he will prove this fact, then his request may be considered later on. However, if he remained fail to clear this fact, the strict action may be taken against him."
6. ' The relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code direct that where accused in custody is/are involved in two separate incidents and required at two different police stations for the purpose of investigation, then the investigation officer has to make a request before the learned Sessions Judge of the area/jurisdiction where such accused is/are already confined, to have his custody for the said purpose; thus, believing the first request of the investigating officer to be bona fide, learned Sessions Judge passed the said order.
7. ' But, the second mentioned above quoted order indicates that the Investigating Officer may have acted with mala fides and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has passed a competent order and final shape has yet to be given to the same; it is yet to be seen if the said Investigating Officer acted bona fide and within his powers invested in him under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C..
8. ' There being no defect in the impugned order this Cr. Miscellaneous application is not maintainable, which is hereby dismissed in limine.