Through instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has prayed that:- "1. Restrain the respondents from falsely implicating the Petitioner in any further FIR based on his retracted judicial confession;
2. Declare the No Objection Certificate that allows/grants authority to institutions to further falsely implicate the Petitioner as illegal and void ab initio;
3. Direct the Respondents to place before this Court a list of criminal cases against the accused In the province of Sindh.
4. Declare the alleged confession as false, fabricated and unbelievable.
5. Any other and further additional relief; which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper suitable in the interest of justice."
2. Precisely the relevant facts, as set out in the present petition, is that:- "That the petitioner was detained by Rangers (Sindh) for over ninety days under section 11-EEEE, A.T.A., 1997, prior to 25.06.2006. During. This period, the petitioner was tortured, beaten, abused and coerced and it is alleged that the petitioner confessed to committing crime being subject matter of FIR 330 of 2009 P.S Nabi Bux for which he later got charged. Afterwards, the petitioner allegedly took the police party to the place of incident on 25.06.2016 which was already in the knowledge of the Police via FIR 330 of 2009 through the report of the then Investigation Officer. After that, the petitioner allegedly went on to give a voluntary confession in front of a Judicial Magistrate on 27.06.2016 under section 164, Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate sent the petitioner back to the Police custody and recorded his confession after calling him again on 28.06.2016.
That the confession in its original form dated 28.06.2016 is placed as Annexure-A along with its English translation which is placed as Annexure A-I.
That it is categorically mentioned that the Petitioner, rescinded from his confession as soon as the trial began which is evident from the charge framed in Spl. Case No.1444 of 2016 on 23.12.2016. Copy of the Charge is placed as Annexure-B.
That on basis of the aforementioned retracted alleged confession of the petitioner, several BLIND FIR's which were originally registered against unknown people, were declared to be inculpating the petitioner in them and a "No Objection Certificate" dated 21.06.2016 (placed as Annexure F) was given by the investigative agency HQ Sector Abdullah Shah Ghazi Rangers Karachi-29 to allow for the arrest and physical remand of the petitioner in Police Custody for the 22 FIR's that can now be registered against the petitioner based on his retracted judicial confession either as Fresh or continued FIRs.
That the petitioner fears that he will be falsely involved in as many as the 22 FIR's based on his retracted confessional statement in which he can be apprehended. From the above mentioned list of FIRs produced in Annexure F, the petitioner has already been charged for FIR No.170/2003 under sections 302/34 (Annexure F- I), another FIR not mentioned in the list being FIR No.78/2008 under sections 147/148/ 149/324/302 read with 7, A.T.A. (Annexure F-2), FIR No.47/2006 supplementary challan under sections 302/324/34 (Annexure F-3) and FIR No.301/1995 (Annexure F-4).
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was arrested on his 164, Cr.P.C., statement (confessional statement was recorded) and he was tried in that FIR; at the culmination of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced him to death sentence. He preferred the appeal that is also dismissed, hence at present, the appeal is pending before the apex Court for adjudication. According to counsel, on the basis of confessional statement wherein he is allegedly admitted, at least twenty five offenses relating to more than hundred cases, "No Objection Certificate" was issued by the Senior, Sector Commander Officer of the Rangers and thus the petitioner is apprehending that he will be implicated in those cases as well, on his confessional statement; that this is a case certiorari as well mandamus, to direct officials that they shall not act on the basis of No Objection Certificate' and confessional statement and they shall be refrained from implicating the petitioner in other cases as mentioned in the alleged confessional statement. Further he has emphasized over pages-511 and 515, which pertains to travel history of the petitioner (accused) by taking plea of alibi with regard two murders as allegedly confessed in that period he was aboard.
4. What is not disputed is the fact that confessional statement, so sought to be adjudged through this writ petition, was in connection with a case crime wherein the petitioner was convicted and even appeal was declined. We are unable to understand how the status of a piece of evidence (confessional statement) can be sought to be adjudicated in writ petition?. Let us add that a piece of evidence of alike nature can never be adjudicated by any other court except that of Trial Court. All questions with regard to legality or otherwise of such like document (piece of evidence) can only be raised before the trial Court. Like documents would mean those documents only which are collected/recorded as piece of evidence in proof or disproof of a criminal liability and creates no other liability or consequence in civil nature actions. Thus, such prayer, being entirely misconceived, cannot be entertained. It may well be added that since petition against conviction is pending before honourable apex Court where the petitioner may raise questions with regard to legality or otherwise of confessional statement, if the law so permits. Needless to mention that writ of certiorari is applicable against the decisions of the subordinate Courts, where remedy of appeal is not available. Here situation is not same. In present case, issue is pending before the apex Court with regard to conviction of petitioner in those cases.
5. Petitioner, who further seeks restraining order from this Court under the writ of mandamus, on use of confessional statement and NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE, in matter of investigations, it would suffice to say that investigation is right of the investigating agency hence it (investigation) normally should not be hampered/interfered even by Court(s). The purpose of investigation is never meant to book one but to bring the real culprits under light and to send him up to face the trial. This has been the reason that investigating officer is obliged to investigate every suspect as well to examine every suspicion while conducting an investigation. Every citizen, therefore, must cooperate with investigation officer unless he feels the authority is being abused by the investigating officer for some other purpose than that of 'bringing the truth on surface'.
The suspect does have a right to bring on surface all his pleas which, the investigating officer is obliged to appreciate, therefore, petitioner is not legally justified in seeking a restraint over such right of investigating officers, if they find the petitioner linked in crimes even as suspect. The view is based on guidelines, so chalked out in the case of Sughran Bibi (PLD 2018 SC 595). At Rel. P-628 it is observed as:- "(3) It is the duty of an investigating officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person"
This Rule should suffice to dispel any impression that investigation of a case is to be restricted to the version of the incident narrated in the FIR or the allegations levelled therein. It is quite evident from this Rule that once an FIR is registered then the investigating officer embarking upon investigation may not restrict himself to the story narrated or the allegations levelled in the FIR and he may entertain any fresh information becoming available from any other source regarding how the offence was committed and by whom it was committed and he may arrive at his own conclusions in that regard. The final report to be submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. is to be based upon his final opinion and such opinion is not to be guided by what the first information had stated or alleged in the FIR. It is not unheard of that sometimes the final report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. the first information is put up before the court as the actual culprit.
(Under lining is mine)
15. All subsequent or divergent versions of the same occurrence or the persons involved therein are to be received, recorded and investigated by the investigating officer in the same "case" which is based upon the one and only FIR registered in respect of the relevant "offence" in the prescribed book kept at the local police station.
With regard to NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE, it would be appropriate to reproduce the same, which is that "NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE
1. Reference order No.1430/Prosec/600/2016 dated 22 March 2016 Saeed Ahmed @ Bharam @ Nagori son of Muhammad Ismail was ordered to be detained for the period of 3 months under section 11-EEEE of A.T.A., 1997.
2. Now in the light of Reports, Recommendations of inquiry/investigation Team, the above said suspect has been found involved in following FIRs as per his admission. a. FIR No.125/1994 under sections 302/34, PS Nabi Bukhsh. b. FIR No.55/1995 under sections 302/324/147/148 PS Pak Colony. c. FIR No.61/1994 under sections 302/34 PS Nabi Bukhsh. d. FIR No.68/1995 under sections 302/34 PS Nabi Bukhsh. e. FIR No.170/03/324/34 under sections 302/34 PS Aziz Abad. f. FIR No.166/03 under sections 302134 PS Liaquatabad. g. FIR No.467/2004 under sections 302/34 PS Korangi. h. FIR No.559/2004 under sections 302/34 PS Korangi. i. FIR No.41/2006 under sections 302/34 PS Zaman Town. j. FIR No.43/2005 under sections 302/34 PS KIA. k. FIR No.120/2008 under sections 302/34 PS Ibrahim Hyderi.
I. FIR No.186/2008 under sections 302/34 PS Landhi. m. FIR No.169/2007 under sections 302/34 PS Ibrahim Hyderi. n. FIR No.120/2008 under sections 302/34 PS Sharafi Goth. o. FIR No.326/2008 under sections 302/34 PS KIA. p. FIR No.179/2009 under sections 302/34 PS Landhi. q. FIR No.552/2010 under sections 302/34 PS Orangi Town. r. FIR No.21/2010 under sections 302/34 PS Awami Colony. s. FIR No.23/2010 under sections 302/34 PS Korangi. t. FIR No.76/2011 under sections 302/34 PS Eidgah. u. FIR No.69/2012 under sections 302/34 PS Landhi. v. FIR No.330/2009 under sections 302/34 PS Nabi Bukhsh.
3. Therefore, this Sector has "No Objection" if the said persons is arrested and remanded into Police custody, for investigation in concerned FIRs or launch fresh FIR as per his admission during JIT session before Team. Sd/- Colonel Sector Commander (Amjad Jamil Iqbal SECTOR HQ ABDULLAH SHAH GHAZI RANGERS KARACHI-29 No.1430/Prosec/1279 /2016 dated 21 June 2016 a. Administrative Judge ATC Karachi for information/record. b. Secretary Home Department, Government of Sindh. c. HQ Pakistan Rangers (Sindh). d. CCPO Karachi. e. SSP Investigation Karachi o/o DIG (East/West/South). f. Superintendent Central Prison Karachi. g. Filed Security Sector. h. SHO PS Nabi Bukhsh. i. Sub Jail Mitha Rain Hotel Karachi o/o Wing ASGR.
Here, it would be advantageous to clarify that for purpose of investigating a suspect 'NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE' is not the requirement of law rather such right shall always be available to investigate a suspect.
No person would be a suspect unless there are some circumstances which make him a suspect. Further, it is clarified that where the circumstances justify arrest of a suspect/accused in some other case crime the same shall also not require 'NO OBJECTION FROM OTHER. LAW ENFORCING AGENCY' rather the investigation officer of 'other case crime may proceed further with request of formal arrest of suspect and even may proceed for obtaining the body (remand) of such suspect. It is also needless to clarify that if during course of an investigation there comes facts of commission of another cognizable offence then police shall be under an obligation to resort to such course (section 154, Cr.P.C.) even without permission/no objection of anybody unless lodgment of such FIR demands so. Such legal position is sufficient to make the prayer, made in petition, with reference to NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE, as redundant.
6. In short, the petitioner is seeking restraining order from this Court that no investigation be carried out in all murder cases which, as observed above, legally can't be granted. No investigation can be stopped in the writ of certiorari and in writ of mandamus. On the contrary writ of mandamus states that official respondents shall act strictly in accordance with the law. What law provides to hear these FIRs, which according to learned counsel were disposed of in 'A' Class, hence, official respondents are bound to investigate all FIR(s) and ensure that all culprits are arrested and arraigned.
Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed along with listed applications. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.