IJAZ-UL-AHSAN, J.--- This petition challenges order, dated 5-6-2009, passed by the Additional Inspector-General Police, Investigation, Punjab, Lahore. Through the said order, the respondent in question, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002, in his capacity as head of Investigation Branch, Punjab order "first change of investigation" of case F.I.R. No,277 of 2007,. Dated 3-10-2007, under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Police station, Phullarwan, District Sargodha. Through the said order, first change of investigation has been entrusted to the Regional Investigation Branch, Sargodha.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the said order and seeks setting aside of the same on the following grounds:---
(i) that the investigation of the case was conducted by Rana Ibrarul-Hassan, Sub-Inspector and the same was verified by Nasir Nawaz, who was then Station House Officer, Police Station Phullarwan. Despite completion of investigation and without a formal order passed by the Standing Board for change of investigation, another investigation was conducted by Sikandar Khan, Inspector and Deputy Superintendent Police Malik Muhammad Iqbal in the garb of verification which was in utter disregard of the law;
(ii) that the challan of the case had already been submitted in Court on 30-5-2007. Since the challan had been submitted and the Court of competent jurisdiction was seized of the matter, any change of investigation was unwarranted;
(iii) that the petitioner did not have confidence in the investigation, which led him to file a private complaint in a Court of competent jurisdiction, which was pending. The impugned order regarding change of investigation would potentially influence the proceedings in the complaint;
(iv) the accused persons have been summoned in the private complaint to face trial on 3-7-2008.
Therefore, change of investigation at such a belated stage, when accused persons have been summoned in the private complaint is in utter disregard of the law and will prejudice his case.
Further changes of investigation have been deprecated by the superior Courts. In this regard, reliance is placed on Muhammad Nasir Cheema v. Mazhar Javaid and others PLD 2007 SC 31.
3. Conversely, the learned Law Officer as well as the learned counsel for the complainant of case F.I.R. No,276 of 2007 have addressed arguments opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The learned Law Officer submits that in the first place, the change of investigation ordered by respondent No,1, vide order, dated 5-6-2009, is the first change of investigation, which has been undertaken strictly in accordance with law and provisions of Police Order, 2002. In this regard reference has been made to proviso to subsection (6) of section 18 of Police order, 2002 which provides as follows:--- "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."
5. The learned Law Officer submits that the change of investigation is strictly in compliance with the said provisions of law and there is no violation of rules and regulations.
6. Relying on Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others 2006 SCMR 373, the learned Law Officer states that in this case there is no violation of Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002, there is no bar on reinvestigation of any case, if it is in the interest of justice as determined by the head of investigation.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also examined the record with their assistance.
8. As far as the impugned order, dated 5-6-2009, passed by respondent No,1 is concerned, the same has been passed in accordance with law. The provisions of Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 are clear in this regard and respondent No,1 has lawfully exercised powers vested in him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show arbitrary exercise of powers or transgression of powers on the part of respondent No,1.
9. In the judgment reported as Bahadur Khan v: Muhammad Azam and 2 others 2006 SCMR 373, their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have elaborately clarified the law, relating to reinvestigation of matters. It would be instructive to reproduce the relevant portion of the said judgment:--- "Police can carry out the fresh investigation and submit its report to the. Court, but this would not mean that in a case in which earlier after completion of investigation challan was submitted for trial of an offence, on which the accused had been tried and the case was finally decided upto the level of the High Court or the Supreme Court, subsequent challan would be entertained which is submitted as the result of reinvestigation or further investigation of the case by the police on the happening of a subsequent incident and that the Court would proceed with the trial of the case in the normal course oblivious of the facts of the case decided earlier by such Court."
' Admittedly, the case against the petitioner party is at its very initial stages and a fresh investigation and report (if necessary) will not necessitate a fresh trial. Consequently, petitioners' anxiety on that score is misplaced and has been adequately taken care of by the principle of law laid down by the apex Court in the aforesaid judgments.
10. In another judgment report as Javaid Iqbal v. Additional Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and 4 others PLD 2008 Lah. 488, it has been held that reinvestigation after submission of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Is not barred, because the fact remains that ultimately the case has to be decided on the basis of evidence recorded by the trial Court. The purpose of investigation as defined under section 4(1), Cr.P.C. Is collection of evidence by the Police Officer or by any other person who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf. As such, the definition of investigation does not talk of opinion of Police Officer who is only authorized to collect evidence.
11. Investigation and reports are material provided by the investigating agencies to help and assist Courts in determining true facts and arriving at just conclusions. However, such reports or opinions are not by any definition binding on Courts of law.
12. In Khalid Javed v. The Board through Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Investigation), Lahore and 5 others PLD 2009 Lah. 101 and Rana Muhammad Anwar v. D.I.-G. And others 2004 PCr.LJ 129 it has been held that even after submission of Challan, there is no bar against change of investigation in appropriate cases, specially so, where the head of investigation, (as provided in the proviso to subsection (6) of Article 18 of the Police Order, 2002), comes to the conclusion that it is in the interest of justice to do so.
13. It is clear from the record that the impugned change is the First Change of Investigation.
Respondent No,1 is authorized under Article 18(6) of Police Order to do so. He has exercised his powers lawfully and in the interest of justice. Nothing has been shown to this Court that may suggest partiality or arbitrary exercise of powers by respondent No,1 to favour either party. I am not impressed by the argument that the change in investigation would prejudice petitioner's complaint or affect proceedings before the trial Court. In any event, investigation and reinvestigation is meant to probe and find evidence and place all such material before a Court of competent jurisdiction.
The Court is required to apply its independent mind to such material and arrive at its own conclusions without relying on the opinions of the investigators, which are not binding on it.
14. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by respondent No, 1 . No interference is called for by this Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.