' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition No,3058 of 1994 (Naeem etc. v. D.I.-G. Etc.) and Writ Petition No,4334 of 1994 (Rafaqat etc. v. D.I.-G. Etc.) seeking directions of this Court to D.I.-G. Of Police, Multan Range, Multan to depute some gazetted Police Officer of the range crime branch who may conduct the investigation of the cases mentioned therein in accordance with law.
2. The subject-matter of Writ Petition No,3058 of 1994 was F.I.Rs, Nos.98/94 and 99/94 registered on 26-5-1994 at Police Station Sahoka District Vehari whereas the subject-matter of Writ Petition No,4334 of 1994 was F.I.R. No,168/94 registered on 16-8-1994 at Police Station Sahoka District Vehari.
In both the writ petitions this Court issued notice and called for the comments of the respondents.
Respondent No,1 had in its parawise comments relating to Writ Petition No,4334 of 1994 admitted that an application for transfer of the investigation was presented before him but he had called for report from the Superintendent of Police, Vehari who had earlier submitted an interim report. The S.P. Was further directed to furnish final report on receipt of which the application for transfer of investigation was to be disposed of by the D.I.-G. As against the above comments of the D.I.G. In the said writ petition, Superintendent of Police, Vehari controverted all the allegations and in Paras.
No,6 and 7 of the parawise comments denied the knowledge of such application and stated that as per his record no application was moved for transfer of the investigation of case F.I.R. No,168/94.
The reports of these two Senior Officers are contradictory to each other and require no further comments. In the parawise comments to Writ Petition No,3058 of 1994 the D.I.-G. Submitted that the investigations of the cases F.I.R. Nos.98/94 and 99/94 were transferred to D.S.P./S.D.P.O., Burewala.
The comments regarding transfer of investigations of cases F.I.Rs, Nos.98/94 and 99/94 did not satisfy the petitioner in the said writ petition and the learned counsel submitted that the allegations made in the writ petition were of serious nature and in order to secure the assurance that justice was not only done but appears to have been done the petitioners would still prosecute their petition and pray for the relief.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigations of the F.I.Rs, Nos.98/94 and 99/94 (Writ Petition No,3058 of 1994) and that of case F.I.R. No,168/1994 of Police Station Sahoka were sought to be transferred out of the District by the petitioners by making an application to the D.I.-G. Who was intentionally avoiding to exercise his jurisdiction only to ensure that the findings of the Investigating Officer were available on the file against the petitioners in all the three F.I.Rs, of malice and the complainant party in all the three writ petitions were openly supported by the local political personage who had their influence with the Government in power and that the Police Officers in District Vehari were under their undue influence and the petitioners could not expect any justice from them.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant challenged the maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that the transfer of investigation by this Court would amount to interference in the exclusive domain of the police while conducting investigations in the cases. Reliance was placed on Shahnaz Begum v. Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan PLD 1971 SC 677; Malik Ghulam Ahmad v. Haji Muhammad You af and others PLD 1976 SC 271; Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar and 12 others v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Ithakwani and others PLD 1994 SC 281 and Brig. (Retd.)
Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan 1994 SCMR 2142.
5. The learned Assistant Advocate-General submitted that cases F.I.R. Nos.98/94 and 99/94 had since been transferred to the D.S.P./S.D.P.O., Burewala and in case F.I.R. No,168/94 the D.I.-G. Had called for the report and that the respondents had no objection to the maintainability but he was of the view that the transfer of cases F.I.R. Nos.98/94 and 99/94 should satisfy the petitioners in Writ Petition No,3058 of 1994 and appropriate orders may be passed regarding transfer of investigation in case F.I.R. 168/94 but he offered no comments on the prayed direction for transfer of the investigation to some other gazetted officer of the range crime in accordance with law.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, had placed reliance on Mst. Riaz Begum v. S.H.O. Ferozewala 1990 PCr.LJ 1250.
7. The police is a part of the system of administration of justice and as is clear from Part V and the provisions as contained in Chapter XIV of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 the investigation commences with the registration of case of a cognizable offence and the S.H.O. Has the powers to investigate any cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate. This Chapter, as stated earlier, relates to investigation of a cognizable case as given in sections 156 and 157 of Cr.P.C. Under section 157, Cr.P.C. The Incharge of the police station is either to proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case or is obliged to depute one of his subordinate officers and is also obliged to send a report to the Magistrate under section 157, Cr.P.C.
8. The writ petitioners had prayed for the direction to D.I.-G. For entrustment of investigations of the said F.I.Rs, to another Officer as given in the writ petition and the D.I.-G. Had all the powers that the Officer in charge of the police station was enjoining under the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 551 was very clear which reads as under:-- "551. Powers of superior officers of police.--- Police Officer superior in rank to an officer-in-charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station."
9. In view of the above provision of law the D.I.-G. Is officer-in-charge of all police stations throughout the area of his range duly notified and as such has all the powers under sections 156, Cr.P.C. And 157, Cr.P.C. Apart from all other powers which are given by the Code to an officer-in- charge of police station. The learned Additional Advocate-General has conceded that there is no separate provision in the police rules regarding transfer of investigations of the F.I.Rs, from one Investigating Officer to the other.
10. Shahnaz Begum's case PLD 1971 SC 677 is entirely on a different footing and in that case a Senior Judge of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan after reading the news in a local newspaper and keeping in view its sensational nature had taken suo motu action in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction vested in the Court under the Constitution, Letters Patent and otherwise and had called upon the Inspector-General of Police to produce before him all investigation papers relating to the case so that he may examine:-- "If the conduct of the investigation has been fair or impartial or the ends of justice require that further investigation of this case be entrusted to any other officer or a Court of law."
' It was in the above circumstances that their Lordships in the Supreme Court held that:-- "Power to issue a direction cannot be invoked where investigation has already commenced in accordance with law by authorities competent to investigate under the Cr.P.C. Nor does the power to direct include power to transfer from one competent investigating agency to another because the same amounted to unwarranted interference with the investigation and the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by the High Court on 30-10-1970, 2-11- 1970, 4-11-1970, 9-11-1970 and 12-11-1970 and their Lordships allowed the investigation of the case to take its own course. In the present case, the prayer is not for the transfer of the case but for the issuance of direction for the transfer of the case to an officer who is authorised under the law to do the same even without the direction of the Court.
11. In Malik Ghulam Ahmad's case PLD 1976 SC 271 their Lordships had observed that the High Court had no power under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Even to quash an investigation and the issuance of writ by the High Court restraining investigation in the case and directing:-- "the respondents are hereby directed not to proceed with the matter any further was held "to have acted without jurisdiction". The dictum as laid down in the said case is not applicable to the present case.
12. In Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar's case PLD 1994 SC 281 the High Court had issued the following direction:- "Therefore, this Court directs the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption, Multan (respondent No,1) to register a case against respondents Nos.2 to 16 under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and, after sending a copy thereof to the Deputy Registrar of Multan Bench, take up its investigation personally. He is also directed to send a weekly progress report about the investigation of the case through the Deputy Registrar to this Bench so long as it is on circuit here and thereafter to the Honourable Senior Judge, Incharge of Multan Bench."
' The Lordships in the said judgment observed at page 288 as under:-- "We consider that the continued control over the investigation exercised by the Court as in this case was prejudicial to the accused and detrimental to the fairness of the procedure apart from being without jurisdiction."
And the order passed by the High Court to the extent of "calling of periodical reports about the progress of the investigation", only was set aside. So far as the part of the order of the High Court relating to the issuance of the direction was concerned, the same was maintained by their Lordships in the Supreme Court and the appeal was partly allowed.
13. In Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad's case 1994 SCMR 2142 the petitioner had sought as many as eight directions and none of those directions was relevant to the transfer of the investigation and, as such, the said case was also not applicable to the case presently in hand.
14. In Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18 it was observed by the Judicial Committee that:-- "The functions of the Judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own functions always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in appropriate case when moved under section 491, Cr.P.C. To issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus."
' The above observations clearly makes out the authority of this Court to intervene in appropriate cases for the dispensation of justice.
15: While disposing Criminal Appeal titled Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State PLD 1969 Lah. 548 it was observed by a Division Bench of this Court that:-- "9. On examining the police file, we found that the defence gave a counter-version of the incident.
The prosecution or the defence did not bring this version on the record. It is the duty of the prosecution to place all the evidence before a Court to enable it to arrive at a correct decision. In a case where there is a counter-version of the incident, it is often of greatest importance for an accused to be able to show that his own version was put forward at the earliest possible opportunity and Courts of law should not deprive an accused his right to make use of such a statement, if he chooses to do so."
16. In the present case the main grievance of the petitioners was that the local police was under coercive influence of the political personage in power, and that the version of the petitioners, who were accused in those F.I.Rs, was neither being recorded nor they had the confidence that the same would be independently looked into by the Investigating Officer with whom the investigation was pending. The matter in issue in the present writ petition is entirely different and the dictum laid down in Mst. Riaz Begum's case 1990 PCr.LJ 1250 is applicable on all fours. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that local police was not expected to have conducted the investigation properly and in accordance with law and that the behaviour of sub-servience to the undue influence of political personage of the Investigating Officer had created reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that they would not get fair and honest investigation even from those Police Officers who were posted in Vehari District.
17. As a conclusion of what has been stated above, the objection to maintainability of the present writ petitions is of no substance. The petitions are maintainable and the Court has the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to issue directions to D.I.-G.
Respondent to exercise his powers under section 551, Cr.P.C. Read with sections 156, Cr.P.C. And 157, Cr.P.C. For the transfer of the investigations.
18. In view of the above the writ petition is accepted and direction is issued to respondent No,1 i,e, D.I.G. Police, Multan Range, Multan to withdraw the investigations of cases F.I.Rs, Nos.98/94, 99/94 and 168/94 from the Investigating Officer/Officers in District Vehari and entrust the same to some other Superior Officer of his own choice preferably to a Gazetted Police Officer of the range crime branch in order to ensure impartiality and fairness of the investigation which is the requirement of law.
' No order as to costs.