' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---The issue between the contesting parties is about the re- investigation of the case F.I.R. No,527 dated 11-6-2011 registered against respondent No,1 initially under the provisions of sections 448, 380 and 506, P.P.C. At Police Station Sadiqabad, Rawalpindi and he was charged as such by learned trial Court. In the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer purportedly deleted section 380, P;P.C. And accordingly submitted his report under section 173, Cr.P.C. In the above scenario respondent No,1 applied to the concerned Magistrate for the deletion of the said Section and asserted that the charge cannot be framed on that basis. This request of the respondent No,1 was allowed by the Magistrate vide order dated 17-3-2012 which order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who maintained the same. In the meantime, the petitioner/complainant had filed for the change of investigation and such request was allowed by the Additional Inspector-General of Police vide order dated 24-3-2012. Respondent No,1 assailed this order vide Writ Petition No,1153 of 2012 with the assertion that re-investigation cannot be ordered for the reasons stated in the Writ Petition. This Petition was allowed vide order dated 18-1-2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers and the ICA of the petitioner has failed through the impugned judgment dated 19-2-2013. The learned High Court while passing the judgment in ICA has opined the mere deletion of section 380, P. P. C. After thorough investigation does not constitute a valid ground for re-investigation of the case. Under section 227, Cr.P.C., the trial court has ample power to alter the charge and add the section attracted on the basis of the material available before it."
2. Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment reported as Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2006 SCM R 373) has submitted that re-investigation can be ordered by the competent authority at any point of time and the Courts could not interfere in the orders passed for the same. Further that the re- investigation can even be ordered after the framing of the charge and even during the course of the trial. Therefore, the view set out by the Learned High Court in the two orders is not in consonance with the law laid down in the aforesaid dictum.
3. On the other hand Malik Jawwad Khalid, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for respondent No,1 has fully supported the impugned Judgment and stated that it is for the learned trial Court to determine whether or not any material has been placed before it which would enable it to come to the conclusion that respondent No, 1 should also be charged under section 380, P.P.C.
Insofar as reinvestigation of the case is concerned learned Advocate Supreme Court has referred to Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 whereby a crime can be reinvestigated after due deliberations and recommendations by a Board headed by an SSP and two SPs of police, one of the latter being in charge of the investigation of the concerned District provided that the final order for the change of investigation shall be passed by the head of investigation in the police area who shall record reasons for such change. Further that as per the second proviso to said Article 18(6) the second change of investigation may only be allowed with the approval of the Provincial Police Officer, or the Capital City Police Officer as the case may be. Per learned Advocate Supreme Court in the first instance the Board vide letter dated 10-12-2011 had recommended the first change of investigation upon deliberations in the matter and accordingly it was sent for approval to the Additional Inspector General of Police, Investigation Branch, Punjab. Vide letter dated 23-12-2011, the Additional Inspector-General of Police did not agree with the Board and referred it back with the observations as follows:-- "(i) Two accused have been challaned and one is PO.
(ii) If section 380, P.P.C. Is attracted, local police may be directed to restore it after obtaining legal opinion.
(iii) One accused is PO and the RIB is not in position to arrest the PO.
(iv) The local police to arrest the 10."
' However vide letter dated 24-3-2012 the Additional Inspector-General again changed his views and authorized the first change of investigation. Per learned Advocate Supreme. Court this amply displays the bias of this officer who is blowing hot and cold at the same time in which circumstance the change of investigation in the matter is not called for.
4. We have heard both the learned ASCs as well as perused the impugned Judgment of the.
Learned High Court and also the comments offered by the police authorities.
5. It would be seen that as per settled law, there is no bar to the reinvestigation of a criminal case and the police authorities are at liberty to file a supplementary challan even after submission of the final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. However this cannot be done after the case has been disposed of by the learned trial Court (see Bahadur Khan (Supra) Similarly there is no cavil to the proposition that a Court of law is not bound by the Ipsi Dixit of the police authorities and rather should formulate its own independent views irrespective of the investigation whether or not to charge the accused with a particular crime. Seen in this view of the matter, perhaps no exception can be taken to the Judgment of the learned High Court which has held as such i,e, that a charge under section 380, P.P.C. Can also be framed against the accused if sufficient material is placed on the record which would convince the learned trial Court to do so. However this aspect does not debar the police authorities from carrying out further investigation in the case. In this regard reference can be made to Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 (Supra). The correspondence placed on record tends to show that firstly the Additional Inspector General, Investigation Branch, Punjab had not agreed with the findings of the Board for re-investigation vide letter dated 23-12- 2011. Thereafter the Capital City Police Officer, Rawalpindi vide his letter dated 10-2-2012 addressed to the Additional Inspector-General insisted for the first change of investigation which was again resisted by the latter Vide his reply dated 20-2-2012. Yet again vide letter dared 15-3-2012 the Capital City Police Officer insisted on his earlier views and finally vide letter dated 24-3-2012, the Additional Inspector-General relented and agreed to the change of investigation. Consequently we are of the view that the matter has not been thoroughly examined at the level of the police officials concerned and perhaps due to pulls and pressures the first change of investigation has been ordered.
6. In this connection it would also be seen that the first proviso to Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 directs that the final order for the change of first investigation shall be passed by the Head of investigation in the general police area who shall record reasons for the same which means that such officer is not merely a post office but has to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case in order to reach the correct conclusion. Consequently we would convert this Petition into an Appeal and allow the same with the directions to the Additional Inspector-General Police, Investigation Branch, Punjab to apply his mind to the case and thereafter pass a reasoned order without being influenced by any other authority at all. In this regard we may also observe that per the second proviso to the Article cited above the Capital City Police Officer has nothing to do with the first change of investigation at all and his role comes into the play only at the stage of second change of investigation. Needless to add the learned trial Court would be at liberty to charge the accused under section 380, P.P.C. As well if sufficient material comes on the record to establish the commission of this crime. So also where as the result of the investigation a supplementary challan has been submitted to include section 380, P.P.C., the learned trial Court would again apply its mind as to whether or not to charge the accused with this crime. Disposed of.