1. SHEIKH AMJAD ALI, J.--On the instance of Shahid Mehmood, the appellant/complainant, a case under sections 302,148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code was registered against Lala Muhammad Idrees, the respondent No,5 and five of his close relations, namely, Nadeem, Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Ismail, Asadullah, Muhammad Naeem and an unknown assailant, vide F.I.R. No,10 of 1996, dated 8-1-1996, at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala, for murder of his father Haji Abdul Ghani. Initially, the case was investigated by the S.H.O., Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala, who allegedly in collusion with accused by a Zimni dated 20-1-1996, found certain accused to be innocent, although the complainant and his witnesses were summoned for recording of their statements for 22-1-1996. The conclusion of the Investigating Officer was also verified by the D.S.P., Civil Lines, although allegedly as stated above, the witnesses were yet to be examined. Hence, on the complaint of the complainant, under the orders of the D.I.-G. Police, Gujranwala, the investigation was transferred to DSP Range Crimes. Since the D.S.P. Range Crimes, could not complete the investigation for six months, on the application of the complainant, the investigation was transferred to D.S.P. City and allegedly he placed the names of the aforesaid accused persons in column No,2 of the challan. In the meanwhile, the investigation was transferred to S.P., Gujranwala, who entrusted it to D.S.P. The complainant being not satisfied with the result of investigation, got the investigation once again transferred to D.S.P, Range Crimes, who also allegedly merely relying upon the earlier findings of D.S.P, City, concluded that the aforementioned persons were innocent and, in fact, the deceased Abdul Ghani was murdered by one Muhammad Naeem and one of his unknown accomplice. The complainant thereupon again moved the D.I.-G Police, Gujranwala, who once again transferred the investigation to the S.P, Range Crimes. The latter officer opined that the aforesaid persons named by the complainant were guilty of the crime and the challan (report under section 173, Cr.P.C.) was accordingly submitted in the Court for trial.
2. This time, however, the respondent No,5 was not satisfied with the result of investigation as a local parliamentarian and members of the Provincial Assembly, being inimical to him because he belonged to opposite political party were allegedly interfering in the investigation of the case. He, thus, approached the D.I.-G., Gujranwala Range, for transfer of investigation to any honest and independent Officer outside the Gujranwala District. D.I.-G Police thereupon transferred the investigation to S.P., Hafizabad. According to respondent No,5, the said S.P. who was otherwise an officer. of immaculate reputation was also pressurised by the complainant party through local member of the National Assembly, members of the Provincial Assembly and senior police officers with the result that the investigation was held in abeyance. Consequently, respondent No,5 moved this Court through a Constitutional petition praying that S.P. Hafizabad be directed for completion of the investigation or in the alternative Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, be directed for entrusting the investigation to some other independent police officer.
2. 3.The Constitutional Petition (W.P. 15729/97) which was filed on 5-7-1997, came up for hearing on 7-7-1997 before the then learned Chief Justice of this Court sitting singally and was disposed of on the same day with the following directions:- "Send a copy of this petition to respondent No,2 who is directed to personally hear the petitioner within this week and after making a thorough probe shall ensure that the investigation of this case is carried out honestly and fairly by an independent Police Officer.
3. 2.Disposed of accordingly."
4. 4.Shahid Mehmood, the complainant in the case being aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the learned Chief Justice sitting singally in Chamber has brought this Intra-Court Appeal claiming that he was condemned unheard and that respondent No,5 had mala fide not disclosed that the investigation in the case stood completed by the S.P. Range Crimes, Gujranwlala, and after its due verification by the D.I.-G. the challan in the case already stood submitted to the Court on 23-6- 1997.
5. 4-A. At the pre-admission stage, the learned Advocate-General was also directed to ascertain the progress in the investigation as it was reported that in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the learned Chief Justice in Chamber, an officer has already been entrusted the case for the purpose of investigation. On 12-2-1998, the learned counsel for the appellant informed the Court that the case for trial was fixed in the Court of learned Special Judge, Gujranwala, for 13-2-1998, and that there was no progress in the investigation of the case. In view of this statement, the investigation in the case stayed for the time being.
6. 5.Today, we were informed that the challan in the case was actually. submitted on 23-5-1997 while in the Constitutional petition which was filed on 5-7-1997 this fact was not disclosed. Further, despite the stay of investigation under the orders of this Court, dated 12-2-1998, the S.P.
7. Headquarters, Gujranwala, had submitted supplementary challan to the Court on 25-2-1998, declaring the four accused to be innocent. It was stated by the S.P Headquarters, Gujranwala, present in the Court that he was not aware of the order of this Court suspending the investigation.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contested this statement and claimed that his client had personally brought this fact to the notice of the S.P., Headquarters. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,876/BC of 1996, wherein it finds mention that according to the complainant the investigation in the case had been carried out by the S.P. Range Crime, wherein all the accused persons were found guilty of the offence. Learned counsel for the appellant was, thus, of the view that the supplementary challan or investigation in the presence of the stay order of this Court were of no legal effect. In this respect, he urged that at the time of filing Constitutional petition respondent No,5 was fully aware of the fact that the investigation in the case had already been finalized by the S.P., Range Crimes, Gujranwala, while the re-investigation of the case being conducted by the S.P. Headquarters had not yet been completed. In this respect, he referred to bail application moved before the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala, by Lala Muhammad Idrees (respondent No,5) and other accused person. In the said application, filed on 28-1-1998, it was mentioned at the end of paragraph 2 thereof that the investigation was still pending with the S.P, Headquarters, Guranwala. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the subsequent challan was, therefore, submitted to the Court by the S.P. Headquarters, and was clearly violative of the legal provisions and the dictum of the superior Courts.
9. 6.Learned counsel representing respondent No,5 did not controvert the entries made in the application of bail moved by the accused including respondent No,5 and the Constitutional petition filed by respondent No,5 that when the Constitutional petition was moved, S.P. Headquarter had not completed the investigation. He also did not deny the factum of completion of investigation in the case by S.P. Crimes Range, Gujranwala and submission of challan by him to the trial Court before the filing of Constitutional petition. He, however, urged that under the law there was no bar for re-investigation in a case where the challan has already been submitted and that supplementary challan can also be submitted to the Court on the basis of subsequent investigation.
10. 7.Learned Additional Advocate-General, on the other hand, contended that once the complete challan is submitted and trial Court takes cognizance thereof' then the Investigating Officer cannot recommend for cancellation of the case or discharge of the accused persons. He was, thus, of the view that where a subsequent report of the investigator is submitted by the Investigation Officer, it will tantamount to be simply his opinion. In this connection, he referred to Nasira Surrya v.
11. Muhammad Aslam and 7 others (1990 SCMR 12).
12. 8.From the examination of the police record, it appears that for quite some time no substantial progress was made for investigation in the case. In particular, from 1-1-1998 to 19-1-1998, no entry in respect of investigation was recorded in the daily diary maintained by S.P. Headquarters. In this connection, the last entry regarding recording of statements of several witnesses is dated 19-1- 1998. no zimni was entered in respect of stay order issued by this Court on 12-2-1998, nor it contained any specific entry that the supplementary challan was submitted in the Court on 23-2- 1998. In this respect, S.P. headquarters when confronted with this situation he submitted that he had completed the investigation on 19-1-1998 and had no knowledge of the stay order issued by this Court and that the rest of the days were consumed in completion of other formalities for submission of challan in the Court. This plea, which is not substantiated from the record, lends support to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that even entries pertaining to 19-1-1998, were made after the issuance of the stay order by this Court.
13. 9.It is a well-settled proposition that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code do not prevent the Investigating Officer from submitting a subsequent report in suppression of earlier one either on his own initiative or on the directions of the senior police officer. But at the same time the superior Courts have always deprecated the successive investigation in a case as such investigation only retards the administration of justice instead of providing any assistance thereto.
14. Similar principle was laid down in Muhammad Aslam and another v. Additional Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P, Home and Tribal Affairs Department and 4 others (PLD 1987 SC 103) and Nasira Surriya v. Muhammad Aslam and 7 others (1990 SCMR 12) as referred to by the learned Additional Advocate-General.
15. 10.In Syed Waqar Hussain Shah v. The State (PLD 1988 Lahore 666), this Court had held that the subsequent investigation after filing of complete challan is always uncalled for, unnecessary and must be avoided as it does not advance but retards the course of justice. In Mst. Kausar,Bibi v. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Crime Branch, Lahore and two others (1996 PCr.LJ 124), it was again held by this Court that subsequent inquiries generally create judicial anarchy and consequently result in administrative/chaos. Similar view was taken up by this Court in Abdul Sattar alias Murli v. The State (1992 PCr.LJ 1) and Muhammad Yousaf v. The Inspector-General of Police and others (PLD 1997 Lahore 135). The latter judgments were based on the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Riaz Hussain and others v. The State (1986 SCMR 1934), wherein it was laid down that "the system of reinvestigation in criminal cases is a recent innovation which is always taken up at the instance of influential people and favourable reports obtained. This in no way assists the Courts in coming to a correct conclusion!, it rather creates more complications to the Court administering justice".
16. 11.In the present case, as discussed above, the writ petitioner (respondent No,5) had not disclosed in his petition that the challan in the case had already been submitted to the Court of competent jurisdiction before filing of the writ petition by him. Further, the supplementary challan was submitted to the Court when the stay order suspending the investigation was in the field. In view thereof, the order of subsequent investigation in the case by S.P. Headquarters, Gujranwala, was obtained without disclosing the true facts to the learned Chief Justice sitting singally in Chamber.
17. Further, even ignoring the allegation of the appellant that the investigation was completed by making post-dated entries in the record, it is clear that the investigation was completed during the period when the stay order issued by this Court was in operation and was made known to the Investigating Officer. Hence, no legal sanctity could be attached to the investigation completed after the stay order issued by this Court suspending the investigation in the case as well as to the supplementary challan submitted in pursuance thereof. In this connection, the learned trial Court is directed to carry on the trial on the basis of the original challan submitted on 23-6-1997. The trial Court would be justified in ignoring the supplementary challan, dated 25-2-1998 submitted during the period when the stay order issued by this Court suspending the investigation was in force. The trial Court is further directed to conclude the trial expeditiously and in any case by the 15th May, 1998. The present appeal is, accordingly, accepted, recalling the order, dated 7-7-1997 passed by the learned Chief Justice in Chamber in Writ Petition No, 15729 of 1997. There shall be no order as to costs.