' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J. Through this constitutional petition the petitioner who is accused in case F.I.R. No,38 of 2006 registered under section 11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance VII of 1979, Police Station Saddar Haroonabad, has voiced his grievance against the illegal and unauthorized change of investigation by the D.P.O., Bahawalnagar from S.H.O. Police Station Saddar Haroonabad to the D.S.P. Of the area, which according to the petitioner is not only violative of provisions of Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 but also the following judgments of this Court:-- ' Muhammad Ali Hussain v. District Police Officer and others PLD 2006 Lah. 95; Aziz Ahmad v.
Provincial Police Officer (I.-G.P.) Punjab, Lahore and 6 others PLD 2005 Lah. 185, Ikram-ul-Haq v.
Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore, and 12 others 2005 PCr.LJ 754. And an unreported judgment of my learned brother Sh. Hakim Ali, J. Passed in Writ Petition No,22587 of 2005/BWP.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that this case was earlier investigated by S.H.O.
Police Station Saddar, Haroonabad who after completion of the investigation recorded findings of innocence of the petitioner, but on telephonic message from D.P.O. Bahawalnagar the investigation was entrusted to the D.S.P. In the garb of verification and the D.S.P. Started re-investigation notwithstanding the expressed provisions of Article 18(6) of Police Order, 2002 and the dictum laid down by this Court in the cited judgments, whereunder neither the investigation could be transferred by the D.P.O. To the concerned D.S.P. Nor the D.S.P. Had got any authority to start re- investigation and under Article 18(6) such authority is only vested either in the District Investigation Board or the Additional Inspector-General of Police (Investigation), Punjab.
3. Comments were called for from D.P.O. Bahawalnagar. In para.3(v) of the report submitted by D.P.O. It is explained that in fact he had directed the D.S.P. (Investigation), Haroonabad to get finalized the investigation of the said case under his personal supervision as eyewitnesses are yet to be associated with the previous investigation. The complaint of the petitioner is that after the completion of investigation and formation of opinion by the S.H.O. Concerned there was any occasion left with the D.P.O. To pass such-like directions which in fact amount to change of investigation in violation of the provisions of Article 18 of the Police Order.
3-A. This Court in the cited judgment has consistently held that although under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002, D.P.O. Does have the jurisdiction to supervise/verify the investigation being head of the District Police yet in terms of sub-Article (5) of Article 18 of the Police Order, he cannot interfere with the process of investigation except to collect information about the progress of cases which have bearing on public order and to provide full support to the head of the investigation in the performance of his duties but such verification cannot be used as a device to have the case re-investigated from the verification officer and to substitute the opinion either about the previous investigation or, conduct of previous Investigating Officer. In the present case it has been conceded in the report submitted by the D.P.O. That he only directed the D.S.P. About verification of investigation and as held above, verification is confined to verification of record only and not re- opening of investigation by the concerned person as has been done in the instant case. The learned Law Officer, present on Court's call, agrees that in terms of Article 18 of the Police Order the D.P.O. Has got no jurisdiction either to change the investigation or to have the case reinvestigated in the garb of supervising the investigation, therefore, the entire exercise by the D.S.P. Concerned in starting re-investigation of the case already concluded by the S.H.O. Is not only without authority but also in violation of the rules of law laid down by this Court in the cited judgments, for which the D.S.P. Can be taken to task by initiation of contempt proceedings against him.
4. Despite all above; since in the present case after completion of investigation the final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has already been submitted, the concerned Court while taking cognizance of the case shall still be free to take notice of such illegality or irregularity in the investigation of the case. For the time being no further proceedings are required in this writ petition which is accordingly disposed of.
5. Before parting with this order I would like to point out that instead of changing investigation in the garb of verification which in face is colourful exercise of jurisdiction, the D.P.O., if is not satisfied with the conduct to investigation, he may place the matter before the District Investigation Board seeking change of investigation, if he himself feels so or receives any information from any person, along with his note giving reason for change of investigation. Further the D.P.O. May also refer the matter to the Additional Inspector-General (Police), Punjab as provided under Article 18 of the Police Order, 2002 but in no circumstances the D.P.O. Can either change the investigation directly or in the garb of verification/supervision of the investigation by any other person already conducted by the competent authority. It is, therefore, expected that in future no D.P.O. Shall act in such-like manner which in fact amounts to assumption of jurisdiction not lawfully vested in them, except by adopting the course mentioned above and in case such exercise of jurisdiction which in fact is colorful exercise of jurisdiction under the law, is brought to the notice of the Court, serious action in the matter shall be taken and the concerned D. P.O. Shall be liable to face contempt proceedings because as a result of such unwarranted and unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction by the D.P.O. a large number of writ petitions are filed daily in this Court and due to such petitions precious time of this. Court is wasted in passing the orders on the point already stand decided by the abovementioned judgments. All the D.P.O. Must know that reported judgments of this Court not only lay guidelines for the public functionaries but are also meant for imparting law to all the concerned, so that they should act in the light of law enunciated in the reported judgments, but it has been noticed with deep concern that no one in authority, especially the Police Officers take any notice of the reported judgments and instead start using their authority despairingly and in flagrant violation of the reported decisions, which otherwise amounts to showing their disrespect to the law declared by the apex Courts, which is binding on all the authorities in the country in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution and also the judgments of the High Court per force of Article 201 of the Constitution. This judgment shall be taken as a last warning for all those concerned and if from today any such like exercise of jurisdiction comes to the notice of this Court no one howsohigh in office, shall be left unpunished and there will be no room left for any sort of mere apology for such- like authorities. The office shall transmit a copy of this judgment to the Inspector-General (Police), Punjab for its onward circulation amongst all the officers concerned. Similarly, a copy of this order be especially sent to the D.P.O. Bahawalnagar for his personal perusal who is consistently changing investigations in the garb of supervision.