This Criminal Revision filed under section 10 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, is directed against the order dated 8-8-2000, passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Balochistan, Quetta, under section 5(6) of the Act of 1958, directing the Investigating Officer to complete investigation and submit challan without any further delay. Facts in the background are that a case was registered with the Anti-Corruption Establishment Keci, on 24-2-2000, vide F.I.R. No,1/M/2000 under sections 420/409/468/471/477/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947, on the basis of a letter/complaint made by Secretary, S&GAD. It was alleged that 30,000 metric tones of wheat was given to Kech Flour Mill, on credit basis, without obtaining proper Bank Guarantee and without completing formal documentation. It was further alleged that it was not brought in the notice of the then Chief Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali (petitioner herein) that wheat cannot be given on credit basis to private parties and his approval was obtained. It is further mentioned that neither the said 30,000 metric tones of wheat was brought to P.R. Centre, Kech from Port Bin Qasim, Karachi, nor the same was supplied to Kech Flour Mill. Only forged documents were prepared showing that wheat was transported and thereafter was given to Kech Flour Mill on credit basis, due to which the Government sustained a loss of about 24 crores rupees. On such report accused persons including the then Secretary, Food, and Director Food were arrested. However, the Director Food, was granted the concession of bail by the Special Judge Anti- Corruption, which order was challenged before this Court, and ultimately bail granted to Director, Food was cancelled vide order dated 13th June, 2000. However, while passing thesaid order following observations were made by this Court, regarding the conduct of petitioner:-- .
"Before parting with the order, it may be observed that an amount of more than rupees twenty-four crores was misappropriated by the respondent and the co-accused. The said amount could have not been misappropriated without the active connivance of the accused persons and the then Chief Minister, who approved the allocation of 30,000 metric tones of wheat to Kech Flour Mill, on credit basis, for which, the Chief Minister had no lawful authority and the same is also in violation of the Manual of Food Accounts. It is regretted that no heed was paid to this aspect of the case by the Investigating Authorities." Being aggrieved from the aforementioned observations, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petition filed by him was accepted and the said observations were ordered to be expunged vide order dated 10-7-2000. After passing of the order by Hon'ble Supreme Court, an application for cancellation of non-bailable warrants was filed before the Judicial Magistrate-III, Quetta, who accepted the same and previous warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner, were ordered to be cancelled vide order dated 27th July, 2000. In the meanwhile, challan of the case was submitted against the other accused persons, who are facing trial before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. An application was moved by the Investigating Officer before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, for issuing warrants of arrest of petitioner. The learned Special Judge, however, refused to issue the warrants of arrest and observed that the Investigating Officer has the powers to arrest an accused person as the alleged offences are cognizable in nature; further directions were given to the Investigating Officer for completion of investigation and submission of challan at the earliest.
Relevant portion of the order for sake of convenience is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "I have considered the above contention and to observe that the offences mentioned in the above F.I.R. Are cognizable offences and the Investigating Officer can himself arrest the persons against whom incriminating evidence is available on record. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under section 5(6) of Pakistan Criminal Law amendment Act, 1958, direct the Investigating Officer Mr. Nisar Ahmad Baloch to complete the investigation and submit challan' without any further delay in the case. The Investigating Officer is directed to submit his report on 16-8-2000 to this Court. The copy of the order be sent to Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Quetta for taking immediate steps in the matter." Being aggrieved from the aforesaid observations, the petitioner has filed instant petition. M/s. Muhammad Aslam Chisthi and Basharatullah, Advocates, appeared for the petitioner whereas the State was represented by Mr. Ashraf Khan Tanoli, learned Advocate-General. Learned counsel Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, contended as follows:-- A. The learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass such an order, as the observations so made, amounts to making directions for the arrest of petitioner. B. Further after passing of the order dated 12-7-2000, by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Quetta, whereby the previous warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner were withdrawn, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to issue such directions. C.
Since the challan has been submitted by the prosecution and case is also under trial therefore, the learned Special Judge, had no jurisdiction, to direct for further investigation of the case. Mr. Ashraf Khan Tanoli, learned Advocate-General contended, that in the impugned order, there is no such direction for the arrest of petitioner and further contended that, interim challan has been submitted. Thus, giving directions for completing the investigation and submitting complete challan at an early date, would not in any way amount to making directions for the arrest of petitioner. He further pointed out, that even after submission of challan, the Investigating Officer himself is competent to further probe into the matter and even re-investigation can be ordered.
Learned A.-G.Stated that there is no bar upon the police to further investigate the matter, even after submission of the final challan. He further argued, that the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the investigation of case. Learned A.-G.Argued that after completion of investigation, the petitioner, if at all was involved in the case in hand he had a recourse before the trial Court or he can even challenge such proceedings before this Court, but in no way the process of investigation can be interfered with by this Court. Learned A.-G.Also challenged the maintainability of petition, on the ground, that under section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, a Revision can only be filed against the judgment but not against an interim order, and that too which is directory in nature. Lastly he objected to the filing of petition, as it has not been signed by the petitioner himself and it has been signed by the Advocate, which could not be done. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and also perused the record of case minutely. Before dilating upon the arguments of parties, it is important to point out, that how the word 'investigation' has been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, and what is the purpose of investigation. The word 'investigation' has been defined in section 4(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which includes all the proceedings under the Code for collection of evidence conducted by a Police Officer during the course of investigation. For sake of convenience, section 4(1), Cr.P.C. Is reproduced hereinbelow:- "4(1)(1) 'investigation', 'Investigation' includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a Police Officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf." It may be observed that the effect of the registration of the case is to move the Law Enforcement Agencies into motion, through which, the investigation starts by a Police Officer in accordance with law. The purpose of investigation is to bring the truth in respect of the crime and furnish the whole truth before the Court. It may be noted that during course of investigation, it is the duty of the Investigation Officer, not only to collect the facts/evidence favourable to prosecution, but if any evidence favourable to accused is collected, that should also be brought to light. The Police Officer, is duty bound to investigate the matter, honestly, fairly and justly, so that the truth be brought to surface. It is the bounden duty of the Investigation Officer not only to build-up the case of complainant party with such evidence, enabling the Court to record conviction by all means, but also to bring out the truth to light to reach at a just and fair decision. Meaning there, that the purpose of investigation is to find out the truth and place the same before the Court by way of collecting evidence, during course of investigation so as to bring the real culprits to book. The object of investigation has been defined by the Indian Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Keshore AIR 1964 SC 221. Relevant portion therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "But the main object of investigation being to bring home the offence to the offender the essential part of the duties of an Investigating Officer in this connection is apart from arresting the offender, to collect all material necessary for establishing the accusation against the offender." The mode of investigation has been elaborated in the case of Abdul Latif v. I.-G. Police and others 1999 PCr.LJ 1357 wherein following observations have been made:- "14. The relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code dealing with the duties and obligations regarding investigation are as follows: Section 4(1) defines the word 'investigation'. Section 160 deals with attendance of witnesses.
Section 161 deals with powers of police to examine any person during investigation. Section 157 deals with sending the F.I.R. To the Magistrate.
15. Taking guidance from the aforementioned Articles of tilt Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, provision of law treatise and case-law proceed to determine duties and obligations of the Police Department and jurisdiction of this Court qua the inaction of the Police Department performance of duties.
16. The word 'investigation' has been defined in section 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to include all the proceedings under the Code for collection of the evidence conducted by a Police Officer. Collection of evidence cannot be confined only to such evidence which only favours the prosecution. Powers of Police Officer under section 160, Cr.P.C. Are only to the extent to require attendance of witnesses in the course of investigation which does not make any distinction either between the witnesses in favour of the prosecution and the defence. Police Officer conducting investigation can acquaint with facts and circumstances. Therefore, keeping in view the contents of sections 160, 161 and 163 law does not make any distinction in the matter of recording statements made in favour of the accused or the prosecution in the course of investigation.
17. The duty of the Investigating Officer is not only to set up a case of complainant party with such type of evidence as may enable the Court to record conviction by all means, but also to bring out the truth.
18. Under section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Investigating Agency is under. a mandate to send the F.I.R. Immediately to the concerned Magistrate. This provision has been made to put effective check on investigation. Even otherwise, the statement under section 161 recorded just after the F.I.R. Is the only material, being the earliest to check the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. In case this material becomes doubtful on the ground that it was deliberately made perfunctory or dishonestly, it loses much of its value and brings us in the area, where possibility of injustice is hundred per cent. This necessitates careful accuracy of the record prepared by the Investigating Officer. Constant vigilance on the part of investigator to be trained and to be accurate is, all the more necessary in under-developing Countries. These provisions provide mechanism of check and balance so that just, fair and impartial investigation is conducted within the framework of the aforesaid provisions and also without fear and favour from political and foreign elements, or without nepotism and favouritism. If the investigation is not conducted in this manner the subsequent proceedings, based on such findings, are found to fall on the ground automatically.
19. Thus, under the Code, investigation consists generally the following steps: (1) proceedings to the spot, (2) ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, (3) discovery and arrest of suspected offender, (4) collection of evidence relating to the commission of offence, which may consist of (a) examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places of seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial and (5) formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under section 173. From the scheme of the Code it is apparent that while it is permissible for an Officer Incharge of a Police Station to depute some subordinate Officer to conduct some of these steps in the investigation, the responsibility for every one of these steps is that of Officer Incharge of the Police Station it having been clearly provided in section 168 that when a subordinate Officer makes an investigation he should report the result to the Officer Incharge of the Police Station. It is also clear that the final step in the investigation, viz. The formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is to be that of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station. There is no provision permitting delegation thereof but only a provision entitling superior Officers to supervise or participate under section 551." A perusal of the impugned order, reveals that it has two portions. As far as the first portion is concerned, the learned Court has refused to issue non-bailable warrants against the petitioner, on the application of State Counsel, as it is within the domain and competence of Investigating Officer to arrest any accused person in a cognizable offence against whom any incriminating material is gathered. In the second portion the Investigating Officer has been directed to complete the investigation relates to completion of investigation and submission of challan at the earliest. It seems that the petitioner is mostly aggrieved from the second portion of the impugned order. From the argument of learned counsel for petitioner, it can be reckoned that the directions given by the trial Court signify that the petitioner be arrested and thereafter challan be submitted and the learned counsel thus argued, that the latter portion of the order be set aside and Investigation Officer be restrained from carrying out further investigation in the case. It may be pointed out that the purpose and definition of the word 'investigation' has been discussed in above and need not to be elaborated any further.
Adverting to the argument of Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Advocate, that latter portion of the order be set aside, I am not persuaded to agree with the said contention as any such order would certainly amount to interference in the investigation process, which is not within the jurisdiction of the Courts. The said proposition would be discussed at a later stage. It is a well-settled proposition of law, that there is no embargo on the powers of police from carrying out further investigation, after submission of the challan. Inasmuch as there is no legal bar for re-investigation of the case, even after submission of the final challan under section 173, Cr.P.C. The police is even competent to carry out fresh investigation after submission of the final challan before the Court. In this regard reliance is placed on Atta Muhammad v. I.-G. Police and others PLD 1965 W.P. (Lahore) 734 wherein following observations were made:- "There is no statutory prohibition in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the police not to embark on the fresh investigation of the case after the conclusion of the first and 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 reasons may be, as alleged in this case, 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 on the availability of better evidence cannot revive the investigation already done, leading to a contrary or a varied result, would virtually amount to putting a seal on human error and 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 circumstances 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 enquiry 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." In Muhammad Yousaf v. The State 2000 SCM R 453, while relying on the case of Atta Muhammad (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court made following observations:-- "However, we may add that since there is no legal bar on the re-investigation of the case, even after the submission of final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. The police may carry out fresh investigation and submit its report to the Court." Reverting to the next contention of learned counsel, that the impugned order be set aside and the Investigation Officer be restrained from carrying out further investigation. In this behalf, it may be observed, that time and again, the superior Courts have held, that the Courts should not interfere in the process of investigation, as it would either prejudice the case of prosecution or that of the accused. In this regard, reliance can be placed on PLD 1994 SC 281, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while relying on the case of Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad AIR 1955 Privy Council 45 made the following observations:-
43. In the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 Privy Council page 18 a word of caution to the Courts in the matter of interfering with the police investigation before submission of the challan was put in the following words: 'In their lordships' opinion, however, the more serious aspect of the case is to be found in the resultant interference by the Court with the duties of the police. Just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should have free access to a Court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring authority from the judicial authorities and it would as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. 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 an appropriate case when moved under section 491, Criminal' Procedure Code, to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the Court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then."
9. 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.
10. The learned Judge seized of the case is ordinarily free to form his own views about the prevailing evils in the country and to suggest his own remedies but it is of utmost importance that in the process widespread, general, non-specific condemnation of the established institutions should not take place, nor should individuals be targeted, or a feeling of despondency or helplessness aggravated from such a level and such a quarter which is looked upon for its balance, restraint, wisdom, ability to guide and control." Thus, in view of the above discussion, the contention of learned counsel Mr. Aslam Chishti is repelled.
It may be observed that a perusal of the impugned order otherwise appears to be directory and general in nature and by no stretch of imagination it can be concluded, that specific directions have been given to the Investigation Officer to arrest the petitioner. The Investigation Officer has only been directed to complete the investigation and submit complete challan. Such directions in my considered opinion would not at all be prejudicial to the petitioner. Regarding the last contentions of learned A.-G. That the petition is not maintainable under section 10 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 and further the same has also not been signed by the petitioner himself. The above contentions need not be dilated upon, as the petition has been decided on merits.
In view of the above discussion, I see no merit in petition, which is accordingly dismissed.