The case has been heard at length. I shall, however, have to go through the various authorities cited by the learned counsel for the parties. During the period in which I write the judgment (which is reserved) the petitioner shall not be arrested.
Muhammad Abdullah was accused alongwith one Muhammad Shafi of offences under sections 406, 420, 468 and 471, P. P. C. Both the accused applied for bail before arrest vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1519/13 of 1973. They were granted interim bail but the application was finally rejected by me on 4-5-1973. I had also directed that notices be issued against the petitioners and Dr. M. Abdul Aziz of Gujranwala, who had prima facie issued a false medical certificate stating that Muhammad Abdullah petitioner was ill.
2. Subsequently the case against them was cancelled. But it appears that a reinvestigation was ordered and the police sought to arrest them again. Muhammad Abdullah petitioner has, therefore, filed the present application (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1969/M of 1973) under section 561, Cr. P. C. Saying that in spite of the fact that the case against him has been cancelled the police wants to arrest him. From paragraph No. 6 of the petition it appears that the petitioner is under the impression that the police wants to arrest him because of my earlier order dated 4-5-1973, requiring that show-cause notices be issued against him and the doctor, who had, prima facie, issued him a false medical certificate. Therefore, he has prayed for the amendment of that order.
After the application was admitted, the Investigating Officer informed me that although the case had been cancelled, a reinvestigation has been ordered and it is for this reason that the petitioner was sought to be arrested.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that although a number of successive investigations can be ordered in a criminal case, yet when the case itself is cancelled, there is no case left for investigation and in such a case reinvestigation cannot be ordered.
There appears to be force in this contention, but the learned counsel for the complainant directed my attention to Atta Muhammad v. Inspector---General of Police, West Pakistan (PLD 1965 Lah.
734). This point did not arise directly in that case and the Court bad only considered the question as to whether successive investigations could be ordered in the same case, yet since the fact was that the case against the accused in that case had also been cancelled by a Magistrate, the observation of the learned Division Bench that the reinvestigation ordered by the authorities, in that case, was validly made amounts to holding that reinvestigation can be ordered even where a case has been cancelled. I am bound, in law, to follow a Division Bench authority. As such I hold that the order requiring reinvestigation of the present case is also valid despite the fact that it had earlier been cancelled by a Magistrate and therefore the police is entitled to arrest the accused.
4. With these observations the application is dismissed and the interim bail already granted to him is cancelled.