ORDER ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J. - Through this petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 21.05.2012 by virtue of which respondent No. 2- Additional Inspector General of Police, Investigation Branch Punjab, Lahore, on the recommendation of Special Standing Board constituted under Article 18(6) of Police Order, 2002, has transferred the investigation of case F.I.R. No. 449/2011, dated 13.11.2011 under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 337- A(i),(ii),(i.e), 337-F(i),(ii),(i.e),(iv),(vi), 337-L(ii), P.P.C. Police Station Saddar Burewala, District Vehari to Regional Investigation Branch, Sahiwal Region.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after submission of challan before the Trial Court the respondent No. 2 cannot transfer the investigation of the case. He further submits that superior Courts have many a times disapproved the practice of successive investigation, thus action of respondent No. 2 being a nullity in the eyes of law, is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel argued that the purpose of investigation is to collect evidence, which has already been collected and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by further delaying the matter. According to learned counsel the accused are playing hide and seek with the learned Trial Court to delay the trial of the case.
3. On the other hand learned A.A.G, while opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no statutory bar for the police authorities to embark upon investigation of the case even after the submission of challan. It was argued that the police has to collect evidence far and against either party and the Trial Court will decide regarding the innocence or guilt of the accused, the police can investigate the matter at any stage of the trial on the availability of fresh material and evidence.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AAG and gone through the provisions of Article 18(6) of Police Order, 2002.
5. In order to resolve the present controversy the provisions of Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 are reproduced as under:- "Investigation shall not be changed except after due deliberation and recommendations by a Board headed by an officer not below the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police and two Superintendents of Police, one being Incharge of the investigation of the concerned District: Provided that the final order for the change of instigation shall be passed by Head of Investigation in the general police area who shall record reasons, for change of such investigation.
6. Perusal of the said Article indicates that the law bestows a power on the duly constituted Board to recommend for re-investigation and if the said Board recommends for re-investigation of the case then even after the submission of the challan the re-investigation cannot be debarred. The job of an Investigating Officer, is thus only to collect all the relevant evidence pertaining to the allegation levelled regarding the crime in issue so as to dig out the truth enabling and facilitating the relevant Court to administer justice between the parties. I may clarify here that an Investigating Officer is not to render any opinion regarding guilt or innocence of an accused and under the relevant statutory provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Police Order, 2002 and the Police Rules, 1934, he is only to collect all the relevant evidence and to submit his report before the relevant Magistrate so that the Magistrate or the learned Trial Court can form their on independent opinion regarding sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence and material in order to decide whether to take cognizance of the offence or not to summon any person to face trial. Reliance is placed on Khizar Hayat and others v. Inspector General of Police, Lahore and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 470). No doubt that holding of successive investigations are deprecated by the superior Courts with intent to avoid undue lingering on the case but how a subsequent challan which almost is complete for submission in the Court of competent jurisdiction can be withheld or brushed aside, even otherwise submission of subsequent challan is not debarred under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, however, it is entirely the discretion of the Court to admit additional evidence if the cognizance of the case submitted to it by the police has already been taken.
7. In the case of Bdhadu Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2006 SGMR 373) it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that door of the investigation is not completely closed after submission of report under Section 173, Cr.P.C, rather it was kept open to serve the ends of justice in appropriate cases in order to furnish relevant piece of evidence regarding probable innocence or guilt of an accused especially at the early stage of the trial.
8. In this case after registration of the case, the I.O. Thoroughly investigated the case and during investigation Abdul Majeed and Muhammad Arshad accused were declared innocent and challan was submitted in the learned Trial Court on 31.01.2012 by declaring Meh mood Akhtar and Muhammad Javaid accused as absconder. Admittedly, the charge has not been framed and no prosecution witness is recorded till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court that the procedure for change of investigation has not been followed or that the transfer of investigation is malafide. In my view the order passed by respondent No. 2-Additional Inspector-General Police, Investigation Branch Punjab, Lahore in exercise of his powers in terms of Article 18(6) of Police Order, 2002 does not suffer fr6m any illegality or misuse of any authority calling for interference by this Court. In the circumstances narrated above, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.