Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Kahloon, respondent No. 1, who was then Adviser for Auqaf and Colonies, Government of Punjab, was on tour on the 29th of March 1971 to Chaubara, a village A. Tehsil Leiah, District Muzafargarh, when Ghulam Muhammad, respondent No. 3, submitted an application before him complaining inter alia that the accused forcibly trespassed into his land, and also committed theft of movables, in addition to .Wrongfully dispossessing him from his land.
Respondent No. 3 on that application is alleged to have recorded the following order: - "S. H. O. Chaubara register the case immediately and take prompt action."
It is stated that the Station House Officer, Chaubara, on receipt of the written application containing the above order of respon--dent No. 1, recorded F. I. R. No. 22/17 and registered a case against the accused under section 379/ 147 of the Pakistan Penal Code. This is a petition under Article 201 of the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1972 with the prayer that the order passed by respondent No. f be declared to be without jurisdiction, and the proceedings initiated in consequence thereof by respondent No. 2 be struck down.
2. Learned counsel contends that since it was not competent under the Code of Criminal Procedure, or, for the matter of that under any other law for the time being in force, for the Adviser, respondent No. 1, to have given any direction to the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station to register a case, his order is without lawful authority and the registration of the case pursuant thereto is also of no legal effect.
3. The adviser may not have been competent to give any direction to the Station House Officer to register the case and if the facts stated in the application did not make out case of cognizable offence, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station could refuse to register the case, notwithstanding the said direction of the Adviser. Therefore, ignoring altogether the order of the Adviser, since the Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station is bound under the Code of Criminal Procedure to receive a complaint when it is preferred to him, or if the commission of the offence was reported to him orally, he is bound to take down the complaint, and in the instant case the complaint made by Ghulam Muhammad which the Adviser sent to the S. H. O. Did contain allegations constituting ex facie a cognizable case falling under section 379/147, P. P. C. The Station House Officer, Chaubara, was under obligation to have registered the case. And if he had failed to perform his statutory function, he would have certainly rendered himself to be dealt with by the superior officers for neglect of duty. If the allegations as contained in the application of respondent No. 3 Constituted the commission of a cognizable offence, it was no more the sweet will of the police officer, concerned to have refused to record the report, because whether an information relates to the commission of a cognizable offence depends not on what the police officer may think, but on what the informant says. The words "information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence" as used in section 154, Cr. P. C., clearly mean that there need not be complete proof or evidence given right at the time of lodging the information; it is sufficient if on the face of it the information so given indicates that a cognizable offence has been committed. In saying so I am mot oblivious of the fact that circumstances may arise in which information is given to the police of such a vague and indefinite character that it cannot be treated as coming under section 154, Cr. P. C., so as to make it incumbent upon the Officer in-Charge of the Police Station to start an investigation and he may reasonably require more direct information before doing so, and such further information given to him in such circumstances might not come under the provisions of section 162, Cr. P. C. The information referred to in section 154, Cr. P. C. Appear to me to be something in the nature of a complaint or accusation or at least information of a crime, given with the object of putting the police in motion - in order to investigate. Under section 169, Cr. P. C., if, upon an investigation, it appears to the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station, or to the police officer making the investigation, that there is not sufficient evidence of reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer is under obligation, if the accused is in custody, to release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such police officer may direct, to appear, if and when so `required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial.
The police officer, under section 173, Cr. P. C. Has to report to the Magistrate result of his investigation. Moreover, in the case of a first information report, the Legislature has ensured some guarantee of its correctness inasmuch as it has clearly provided in section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code that whosoever gives false information to a Police Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station with intent to cause him to use his lawful power to the injury of another person shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment of either descrip--tion for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
4. Learned counsel next contended that the police having already investigated the case with reference to the incident which took place on the 17th of May 1970 no further report could be received with reference to the same incident, and consequently the case could not be registered.
It is one thing to say that some case is registered wit reference to a particular incident and quite another that a case is registered with reference to the particular allegations. It is admitted by the learned counsel that no case was, registered respect of the allegations made in this case. If some other case was registered in respect of the incident which happened on that day that would not be a bar for the registration of another case on different allegations though arising out of the same incident. The contention of the learned counsel is untenable, because, if accepted, it will mean that there can be no cross-cases registered, at the instance of the contending parties opposing each other.
5. It was next contended that the police had made a thorough investigation earlier on account of the case registered at the instance of the petitioners in respect of the incident dated the 17th of May 1970 and that if there had been any truth in the allegations of the respondent the police would have, when they were disclosed such information, registered the case. It is a hypothetical statement and on its basis the action of the Station House Officer which otherwise is in conformity with the provisions of section 154, Cr. P. C. Cannot be called in question.
6. It was next contended that the registration of the case will result in multiplicity of investigation and this will be against' the interest of justice.
The contention is fallacious. Din Muhammad and Cornelius, JJ, when on the Lahore High Court, held in Muhammad Nawaz v. The Crown (48 Cr. L J 774) that the "number of investigations into a crime by a police officer is not limited by law and when one has been completed, another may be begun on further information received." Again in Reghunath Sharma and others v. The State (AIR 1963 Pat.
268) it was observed that there can be no bar to the investigation by the police officer after the submission of a final report under section 173, Cr. P. C. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, placed reliance on Emperor v. Ali and another (AIR 1932 Lah. 611) where it was laid down: "If on the other hand the investigation is complete then he must send up the case under section 173, and then he has no power to resume the investigation. I am aware of no legal sanction for further investigation by a police officer if he has sent up the case for trial under section 173, specially with a view to find evidence in favour of the accused". It may be pointed out that this judgment was considered by a Division Bench comprising Sajjad Ahmad and Muhammad Akram, JJ., in Atta Muhammad v. Inspector-General of Police, West Pakistan (PLD 1965 Lah, 734) and the view taken therein was not approved. His Lordship, Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan, writing the judgment of the Division Bench, observed at pages 739-740 of the Report as follows: - "With all deference to the learned Judge, we have not been able to discover any legal or rational basis for this observation and we must dissent from it with the utmost respect. There is no statutory prohibition in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the police not to embark on a fresh investigation of the case after the conclusion of the first and the submission of the final report whatever the defects in the first investigation or the flaws in the final report given in the wake of it, that might subsequently be detected. The first investigation may be utterly unsatisfactory for many reasons. It may be due to non-availability of the evidence, or the successful induction of false evidence during the investigation or the reason may be, as alleged in this cage, namely : the corrupt behaviour of the police officers concerned. To say that the same police officers or their superiors on receipt of further information or not the availability of better evidence cannot revive the investiga--tion already done, leading to a contrary or a varied result, would virtually amount to putting a seal on human errors and frailties once committed, whether by design or by inadver--tence, with no opportunity to make amends, although it be possible to do so. The police, as an agency of the State, should be as much interested as any other agency concerned in the administration of justice, to find out the truth in respect of a crime and lay the whole facts bare for determination by the competent tribunals as honestly and correctly as possible. The statutory functions of the police and the Courts in this respect are complementary to each other and do not overlap. The fact that the previous investigation had yielded certain results should not act as a hurdle or a deterrent for the police in reaching the truth if additional facts and additional circum--stances brought to light help in its discovery: The Magistrate himself does not have the legal powers to direct a further investigation by the police after he himself has taken cognizance of the case and has himself launched an inquiry or trial; but there is no bar for the police to pursue its own investigations and submit their result to the Court to find the guilt or innocence of the accused persons before it becomes too late. The competency of the police to carry out multiple investigations in the same case has been considered anti upheld in several cases."
7. The mere fact that a case has been registered against the accused is by itself no proof that the allegations contained in the complaint are correct. The truth or falsity of the accusation can be determined only with reference to the facts which may be brought out as a result of the investigation. I would, however, record a note of caution for the Station House Officer's guidance that he will not in any way be influenced by the direction of the Adviser and shall proceed to investigate the case to find out the truth. If in his opinion no case is made out, he will, of course, proceed to make a report to that effect under section 173, Cr. P. C. On the other hand, if as a result of the investigation he finds that a case is made out he would report the matter in accordance with law to the Magistrate concerned.
8. No other point is urged. The petition has no merit and is dismissed do limine.