' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order passed by the learned Judge in Chambers whereby show-cause notice has been issued why the petitioner should not be prosecuted under section 476, Cr.P.C.. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 18-5-1994 by which the learned Judge had directed Maj. Mubasharullah S.P. (Special), Lahore, who was present in Court on the date of hearing to proceed immediately to Pattoki Sagar Mills and find out about Ashraf abductee. He was authorized to examine the records of the Mills and if necessary take them in possession regarding attendance etc., of the alleged abductee. It was also pointed out in the impugned order that it would be desirable that investigation is entrusted to senior officers preferably from outside Kasur District., In this regard the learned Judge observed that the DIG of Lahore Range may examine the desirability of entrusting this case to Mubasharullah, S.P. (Special), Lahore. From the impugned order it seems that the petitioner had made statement in Court while producing Muhammad Khalil deteinu before the Court. From the inquiry and the statement the learned Judge came to the conclusion that false statement had been made about the arrest of the detenu. Taking note of the contradictions in the statements of the S.H.O. And the D.S.P., the learned Judge recorded their statements on oath and also summoned SSP, Kasur whose statement was also recorded. It was concluded as follows:-- "From the proceedings taken in this matter today it appears at least prima facie that Saeed Hussain Shah, D.S.P. And Riaz Ahmed Bhatti have made false statements before this Court on oath.
A notice shall issue to them to show cause why they should not be prosecuted to terms of provisions of section 476, Cr.P.C. And punished, if found guilty. Both of them pray for some time to enable them to defend themselves. The prayer is reasonable and is allowed."
2. The learned counsel contended that by the impugned order the learned Judge is interfering with the investigation and has taken it over by nominating an officer to carry out this work. The learned counsel has referred to Mst. Shahnaz Begum's case (PLD 1971 SC 677) and Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar v.
Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani (PLD 1994 SC 281). A perusal of both the orders will show that in the first order the learned Judge has taken note of the contradictory statements made by the police officers about the detention and has come to the conclusion that false statement was made in Court for which they are liable to be prosecuted under section 476, Cr.P.C., for which notice has also been issued. This does not amount to interference with the investigation. The action taken is in respect of the proceedings of the Court where according to the impugned order false statement had been made. The Court has issued notice and the petitioner would be entitled to defend himself according to law. So far the second order dated 18-5-1994 is concerned, the learned Judge has appointed Maj. Mubashrullah, S.P. (Special), Lahore, who was present in Court to merely go and inquire about the abductee (Ashraf) and to check the records. This was only with a view to obtain proper records, which may not be manipulated or destroyed. From the facts, the learned Judge had concluded that the police officers-in-charge of the case were not acting honestly and bona fide. Therefore, a suggestion was mad to the D.I.G. To entrust the investigation to senior police officers and name of the foretasted S.P. Was recommended. However, option was left to D.I.G., to do so. This in any manner does not amount to interference with the investigation or to take charge of the investigation himself or to appoint an officer for carrying out the investigation. The D.I.G., will take necessary action as he may deem fit. We, therefore, refuse to grant leave.