' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Through this petition filed by Muhammad Tahir Malik who is nominated accused of the F.I.R. No,165 of 2006, dated 3-6-2006 under sections 337-A(ii)/337- F(i)/337-L(ii)/ 148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Shehar Sultan District A Muzaffar Garh, the investigation conducted by the D.S.P., Circle Jatoi, has been called in question on the ground that same was conducted in violation of provisions of Article 18(6) of Police Order, 2002.
2. According to the said F.I.R. Which had been registered at the instance of respondent No,6, precise allegation against the petitioner is that on 1-6-2006 at 8-00 p.m. Sajjad Hussain brother of the complainant while returning to home was intercepted by the petitioner and his accomplices. All of them caused blunt weapon injuries to Muhammad Tariq and Sajjad Hussain, injured P.Ws. The petitioner has been attributed the role Of causing blunt weapon injuries on the wrist of Sajjad Hussain, injured P.W.
3. In support of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that initially the case was investigated by the local police and same was found to be false and report of cancellation of case was prepared, thereafter in violation of Article 18(6) of Police Order, 2002, SP/SDPO, Jatoi, conducted the investigation and challaned the accused. He adds that without order of the transfer of first investigation as envisaged under the aforementioned Article said DSP had got no jurisdiction to investigate the case. He further maintains that in view of the judgment of the Honourable Full Bench of this Court reported as Khizar Hayat and others v. Inspector-General of Police PLD 2005 Lah. 470, said DSP could only verify the investigation. To supplement his arguments he has further placed reliance upon Imran Shaukat v. Incharge (Investigation), Police Station Nawankot, Lahore and 2 others 2006 MLD 501 (Lahore).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the petitioner being a technician in a hospital, got medico-legal report in his favour, on the basis of which the concerned S.H.O. Recommended for the cancellation of case but said cancellation report was never forwarded to the Court of competent jurisdiction. When the same was placed before the aforementioned DSP for approval he did not agree to said report as the facts of the case and the medico-legal report indicated accused to be guilty. Therefore, he directed for submission of the challan which had already been submitted before the trial Court. He adds that the complainant was cited as a witness in F.I.R. No,124 dated 8-5-2006 registered against the petitioner at the same police station. The petitioner did not like this and as a revenge caused injuries along with his co- accused to the brother of the petitioner.
5. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and going through the record, I have noticed that on the application of the petitioner the order, dated 9-6-2006 was passed by the Additional Inspector-General of Police (Investigation), Punjab, Lahore, whereby DPO Muzaffar Garh was directed to get the case investigated in accordance with law. Said order shows that it was the petitioner himself who had obtained order in violation of Article 18(6) of the Police Order, on the basis of which he succeeded in getting favourable report of cancellation of case. Respondent No,2 DSP/SDPO, who is present in person has submitted that he neither investigated the case nor collected any fresh material and as such there is no violation of the above mentioned Article. He had simply disagreed with the cancellation report in view of the material available on the record and recommended for submission of the challan. Said statement coupled with other circumstances clearly shows that it was not a case of transfer of investigation and concerned DSP had simply disagreed with the cancellation report and recommended for the submission of the challan which had already been submitted before the concerned Court on 13-1-2007. Under the law function of the police is only to collect the evidence and their opinion is neither admissible in evidence and nor binding upon the Courts. Ultimately it is function of the Court to decide the fate of the case. The challan in this case has already been submitted to the Court where the petitioner would be having all the opportunities to plead his case and defend himself. It is also observed that the cancellation report prepared by the S.H.O. Was never placed before the competent forum and before reaching said stage the same was upset by the aforementioned SDPO. Therefore, no vested right accrued in favour of the petitioner merely on the basis of said report submitted in his favour by the Investigating Officer. Even if the said cancellation report had been submitted before the concerned Magistrate he too could have disagreed to the same resulting in the case being decided by the trial Court. As the challan of the case stands submitted before the Court of competent jurisdiction, no interference at this stage is called for. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of advancing his case is damaging the same. Consequently, no illegality justifying the acceptance of this writ petition has been found in this case and resultantly this petition is dismissed.