Hassan Law Chamber

Website

Hassan Law Chamber "Hassan Law Chamber is a experienced legal firm dedicated to providing expert legal services. family law, criminal defense, etc.].

Our team of skilled lawyers, Hassan offers a wide range of legal expertise, including [list specific areas of practice, e.g.

❓ اگر منشیات (ہیروئن) کے مقدمے میں موقع پر برآمدگی کی ویڈیو گرافی نہ کی گئی ہو، تو کیا ضمانت کے مرحلے پر ویڈیو گرافی نہ ...
13/10/2026

❓ اگر منشیات (ہیروئن) کے مقدمے میں موقع پر برآمدگی کی ویڈیو گرافی نہ کی گئی ہو، تو کیا ضمانت کے مرحلے پر ویڈیو گرافی نہ ہونے کو بنیاد بنا کر یا عدالت میں ویڈیو چلانے کا مطالبہ کر کے ریلیف لیا جا سکتا ہے؟

​❓ ضمانت کے مرحلے پر عدالت کا ویڈیو یا ڈیجیٹل مٹیریل کا جائزہ لینے کا دائرہ کار کیا ہے، اور کیا عدالتیں اس موقع پر مائکروسکوپک یا تفصیلی جائزہ لے سکتی ہیں؟

​❓ اگر بھاری مقدار میں (مثلاً 5000 گرام ہیروئن) منشیات برآمد ہو اور ملزم کی موقع پر موجودگی یا گاڑی میں چھپائے جانے سے لا علمی ثابت نہ ہو، تو کیا وہ ضمانت کا حقدار بنتا ہے؟

​📌 One-Line Citation Description
منشیات کی برآمدگی کے مقدمات میں ضمانت کے مرحلے پر ویڈیو گرافی کا عدالت میں جائزہ لینا یا چلانا ممکن نہیں ہے، اور بھاری مقدار میں ہیروئن برآمد ہونے پر ملزم ضمانت کا حقدار نہیں ہوتا—پشاور ہائی کورٹ
۔
​⚖️ 2026 P Cr. LJ 1570
[Peshawar High Court]
​👥 MINA GUL Versus The STATE

​Decided on 18th July, 2025
(Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application under Section 497 Cr.P.C. in case involving Section 9(1) Sr. No. 6(d) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, regarding Possession of 5000 grams of He**in, Scope of Videography of Recovery Proceedings at Bail Stage, Tentative Assessment, and Rejection of Bail for Narcotics Trafficking)
​Bench: Mr. Justice S. M. Attique Shah, Chief Justice

​📘 Definitions of Legal Concepts

​⛔️ Scope of Videography at Bail Stage (ضمانت کے مرحلے پر ویڈیو گرافی کا دائرہ کار):
برآمدگی کے وقت کی ویڈیو گرافی کو ٹرائل کے دوران جانچنے کے لیے صرف ایک تائیدی یا ضمیمہ جاتی ثبوت (Corroborative or circumstantial evidence) کے طور پر دیکھا جا سکتا ہے. ضمانت کے مرحلے پر عدالت میں اس طرح کا ڈیجیٹل مواد چلانے یا پیش کرنے کی اجازت نہیں ہوتی کیونکہ یہ ضمانت کی کارروائی کے محدود دائرہ کار سے باہر ہے. ضمانت کے مرحلے پر عدالتیں تفصیلی یا باریک بینی سے جائزہ (Microscopic evaluation) لینے سے گریز کرتی ہیں.

​⛔️ Role of Forensic Report for Video/Digital Material (ڈیجیٹل مواد کے لیے فارنسک رپورٹ کا کردار):
ضمانت کی عدالت زیادہ سے زیادہ کسی باقاعدہ تسلیم شدہ لیبارٹری کی فارنسک رپورٹ کا جائزہ لے سکتی ہے تاکہ صرف یہ عارضی اندازہ (Tentative view) لگایا جا سکے کہ آیا ویڈیو میں کوئی ردو بدل یا جعل سازی (Tampering or fabrication) ہوئی ہے یا نہیں. یہ جائزہ صرف رپورٹ کی حد تک محدود ہوتا ہے.

​⛔️ Heinous Nature of Narcotics Trafficking (منشیات کی اسمگلنگ کا سنگین جرم):
منشیات کی اسمگلنگ، ترسیل اور تقسیم میں ملوث افراد نہ صرف قانون کی خلاف ورزی کرتے ہیں بلکہ معاشرے کے خلاف ایک مکروہ اور سنگین جرم کے مرتکب ہوتے ہیں؛ لہٰذا ایسی سنگین صورتحال میں جب بھاری مقدار برآمد ہو، ملزم نرمی کا مستحق نہیں ہوتا.

​⚖️ Definitions of Sections & Laws

​⛔️ Section 9(1) Sr. No. 6(d), Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA), 1997: ہیروئن یا دیگر منشیات کی بڑی مقدار (مثلاً 4000 گرام سے زائد) کے غیر قانونی قبضے اور ترسیل کی تعزیری دفعات.

⛔️ Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C): قابلِ ضمانت اور نا قابلِ ضمانت جرائم میں بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت کے اصول.

​Posted by Legal Luminaries

​📖 Background of the Case
پٹیشنر (مینا گل) کے خلاف الزام تھا کہ اسے گاڑی چلاتے ہوئے تلاشی کے دوران 5000 گرام ہیروئن کے ساتھ رنگے ہاتھوں گرفتار کیا گیا. پٹیشنر کے وکیل نے ضمانت کی درخواست میں یہ موقف اپنایا کہ گرفتاری اور برآمدگی کے وقت کوئی ویڈیو گرافی نہیں کی گئی تھی. پشاور ہائی کورٹ کے چیف جسٹس نے اس کیس کی سماعت کرتے ہوئے ضمانت کے مرحلے پر ویڈیو گرافی کی قانونی حیثیت اور بھاری مقدار میں منشیات کے مقدمات میں ضمانت کے اصولوں پر تفصیلی فیصلہ صادر فرمایا.

​⚖️ Core Legal Questions
​❓ کیا منشیات کی برآمدگی کے وقت ویڈیو گرافی نہ ہونے کو ضمانت کے مرحلے پر بنیاد بنایا جا سکتا ہے اور کیا عدالت میں ویڈیوز چلائی جا سکتی ہیں؟

​❓ کیا 5000 گرام ہیروئن جیسی بھاری مقدار برآمد ہونے پر اور کیمیکل رپورٹ مثبت آنے کے بعد ملزم بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت کا حقدار بنتا ہے؟

​🏛️ Court's Observations & Legal Principles

​✅ ضمانت کے مرحلے پر ویڈیو مواد پیش کرنے کی ممانعت:
پشاور ہائی کورٹ کے معزز چیف جسٹس (ایس ایم عتیق شاہ) نے قرار دیا کہ برآمدگی کی ویڈیو گرافی صرف ٹرائل کے دوران پرکھنے کا مٹیریل ہے. ضمانت کے مرحلے پر عدالت میں ویڈیوز چلانے یا ان کا تفصیلی جائزہ لینے کا کوئی قانونی جواز موجود نہیں ہے. عدالتیں ضمانت کے وقت صرف فارنسک رپورٹ کی حد تک عارضی جائزہ لے سکتی ہیں کہ آیا کوئی جعل سازی ہوئی ہے یا نہیں.

​✅ بھاری مقدار اور موقع پر موجودگی کا پختہ تعلق:
عدالت نے مشاہدہ کیا کہ 5000 گرام ہیروئن جیسی اتنی بڑی مقدار کا کسی پر جھوٹا الزام تراشا جانا بظاہر ناممکن ہے. پٹیشنر نہ تو موقع پر اپنی موجودگی کی تردید کر سکا اور نہ ہی یہ ثابت کر سکا کہ اسے گاڑی میں چھپائی گئی منشیات کا علم نہیں تھا. فارنسک سائنس لیبارٹری کی رپورٹ بھی مثبت تھی.

​⚖️ Final Order
پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے پٹیشنر (مینا گل) کی بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت کی درخواست کو بے بنیاد اور منشیات کے سنگین جرم کے پیشِ نظر خارج (Dismissed) کر دیا.

​📑 Ratio Decidendi
ضمانت کے مرحلے پر برآمدگی کی ویڈیو گرافی کو عدالت میں چلانا یا اس کا تفصیلی جائزہ لینا قانوناً جائز نہیں ہے؛ اور جہاں بھاری مقدار میں ہیروئن برآمد ہو اور کیمیکل رپورٹ مثبت ہو، وہاں ملزم بادی النظر میں جرم سے منسلک ہوتا ہے اور وہ ضمانت کا حقدار نہیں رہتا.

​💼 Practical Utility for Advocates
​وکلاء برائے صفائی / پٹیشنر (Counsel for Petitioner):
​اگر دفاع میں ویڈیو یا ڈیجیٹل شواہد کی عدم موجودگی کا نکتہ اٹھانا ہو، تو یاد رکھیں کہ 2026 P Cr. LJ 1570 کے مطابق ضمانت کے مرحلے پر عدالت ویڈیوز چلانے کی پابند نہیں ہے؛ لہٰذا اس نوعیت کے تکنیکی نکات کو ٹرائل ( شہادتوں اور جرح ) کے مرحلے پر بھرپور طریقے سے اٹھایا جائے.

​وکلاء برائے استغاثہ / ریاست (Counsel for State):
​منشیات کی بڑی مقدار (مثلاً کلوگرامز میں ہیروئن یا چرس) کے مقدمات میں اس نظیر کا حوالہ دے کر دلائل دیں کہ ضمانت کے مرحلے پر ویڈیو گرافی یا تکنیکی نقائص کی بنیاد پر تفصیلی بحث کی گنجائش نہیں ہوتی، اور ملزم بادی النظر میں جرم میں ملوث پایا جاتا ہے.

​🎯 Quotable Legal Principle
​"Videographic recordings in recovery proceedings may be treated only as corroborative or circumstantial evidence to be assessed during trial. Playing or presentation of such videographic material at the bail stage is not permissible, as the Court at this stage must refrain from microscopic evaluation and must only rely on a tentative assessment of the affirmative forensic report and the heavy quantity of narcotics recovered."

Posted by Legal Luminaries

​📚 Precedents Referred & Cited
(Note: The provided text of 2026 P Cr. LJ 1570 focuses on the statutory interpretation of Section 9(1) CNSA 1997 and the procedural scope of videography at the bail stage without citing external case law precedents in its body.)

2026 P Cr. LJ 1570

[Peshawar]

Before S M Attique Shah, C.J

MINA GUL---Petitioner

versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous (Bail Application) No. 1887-P of 2025, decided on 18th July, 2025.

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

---497---Control of Narcotić Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(1), Sr. No. 6(d)---Possession of narcotic substance---Bail, refusal of---Videography of recovery proceedings---Scope---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he was found in possession of 5000 grams of he**in---Accused-petitioner contended that no

videography of the alleged recovery was made at the time of the purported seizure by the Seizing Officer---Videographic recordings in recovery proceedings may be treated only as corroborative or circumstantial evidence to be assessed during the course of trial---Playing or presentation of such videographic material at the bail stage is not permissible and falls outside the scope of limited judicial assessment undertaken in bail proceedings---At the bail stage, the Court must refrain from embarking upon a detailed or microscopic evaluation of the evidence---Requests for presentation or playing of videographic material in open Court during the bail stage are legally untenable---Court seized of a bail matter, at best, may take into consideration the forensic report issued by a laboratory duly designated and accredited for such purposes, solely for forming a tentative view regarding authenticity, veracity and genuineness of the disputed videographic material---Such consideration, however, must be confined to assessing whether the forensic findings prima facie support or otherwise the claim of tampering, fabrication or manipulation of the recording---On tentative assessment, material available on record reflected that the accused-petitioner had been apprehended red-handed at the spot and a substantial quantity of narcotic substance, i.e. 5000 grams of he**in, was recovered from the vehicle which he was driving at the relevant time, and the Forensic Science Laboratory Report was also in the affirmative---Keeping in view the nature and quantity of the narcotic substance involved, it appeared highly improbable that such a huge quantity of contraband could have been falsely planted against the accused-petitioner, particularly when he did not plausibly dispute his presence at the spot nor could show that he had no conscious knowledge of concealment of the contraband in the vehicle---Accused-petitioner was, therefore, prima facie linked with the commission of the offence and the Court was not persuaded to grant him the concession of bail---Individuals engaged in trafficking, transportation and distribution of narcotic substances are not merely violating statutory provisions but are perpetrating heinous crimes against society at large---Bail petition
was dismissed, in circumstances. (pp. 1572, 1574, 1575] A, B & C

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
---S.

497---Bail

order---Tentative

observations---Effect---

Observations recorded in bail order, being purely tentative in nature, shall in no way prejudice the proceedings before the Trial Court, where the case shall be decided on its own merits after recording evidence. [p. 1576] D

Muhammad Saeed Afridi for Petitioner.

Shah Faisal Utmankhel, Advocate General and Asad Jan Durrani, A.A.G. along with Fazal Qayyum Khattak, Deputy Secretary, Home Department (on court notice) and Zahoor Khan, OII, Jamrud for the State.

08/10/2026

Han barosa

تفتیش کے دوران حاصل کیے گئے دستاویزی اور ڈیجیٹل مواد، بالخصوص موبائل فونز، آڈیو/ویڈیو ریکارڈنگز اور دیگر الیکٹرانک ریکار...
08/10/2026

تفتیش کے دوران حاصل کیے گئے دستاویزی اور ڈیجیٹل مواد، بالخصوص موبائل فونز، آڈیو/ویڈیو ریکارڈنگز اور دیگر الیکٹرانک ریکارڈز کی اصالت، قابلِ قبولیت، متعلقہ ہونے اور اثباتی قدر (probative value) کا تفصیلی جائزہ مرحلۂ ضمانت پر نہیں لیا جا سکتا، کیونکہ ایسے امور کا تعین شہادت قلمبند ہونے کے بعد باقاعدہ ٹرائل کے دوران معزز Trial Court کے دائرۂ اختیار میں آتا ہے۔ چنانچہ اس مرحلے پر مذکورہ مواد کی حتمی حیثیت متعین کرنا نہ صرف قبل از وقت ہوگا بلکہ ٹرائل کے دائرۂ کار میں مداخلت کے مترادف بھی ہوگا۔ موجودہ مقدمہ بادی النظر میں مزید تفتیش (further inquiry) کے زمرے میں آتا ہے، لہٰذا ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 497(2) کے تحت درخواست گزار ضمانت کی رعایت کا مستحق ہے۔

2۔ مزید تفتیش اور ڈیجیٹل شہادت کے حوالے سے

یہ امر بھی قابلِ غور ہے کہ استغاثہ کی جانب سے پیش کیا جانے والا موبائل فون، آڈیو/ویڈیو مواد اور دیگر الیکٹرانک دستاویزات اپنی ذات میں ایسی حتمی اور ناقابلِ تردید شہادت نہیں ہیں جن کی بنیاد پر مرحلۂ ضمانت پر ملزم کی حتمی ذمہ داری متعین کی جا سکے۔ ان مواد کی اصالت، سالمیت، ماخذ، admissibility، relevancy اور evidentiary/probative worth کا تعین باقاعدہ شہادت ریکارڈ ہونے، گواہان کے بیانات اور جرح کے بعد ہی ممکن ہے۔ لہٰذا ان امور کا حتمی فیصلہ ٹرائل کورٹ کے لیے محفوظ رہنا چاہیے۔ اس مرحلے پر موجود شکوک و شبہات درخواست گزار کے حق میں جاتے ہیں اور معاملہ دفعہ 497(2)، ضابطہ فوجداری کے تحت مزید تحقیق کا متقاضی ہے۔

3۔ Rule of Consistency کے حوالے سے

مزید برآں، شریک ملزم محمد موزن علی، جس کے انٹرویو اور ویزا سے متعلق دستاویزات ہی مبینہ طور پر اس تفتیش کے آغاز کا باعث بنے تھے، کو معزز عدالت پہلے ہی مورخہ 01.04.2026 کے حکم کے ذریعے بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت پر رہا کر چکی ہے۔ لہٰذا جب بنیادی تفتیشی مواد سے منسلک شریک ملزم کو ضمانت کی رعایت دی جا چکی ہے تو موجودہ درخواست گزار کے ساتھ یکساں قانونی معیار کا اطلاق ناگزیر ہے۔ اصولِ یکسانیت (Rule of Consistency) کے تحت، جب تک درخواست گزار کا کردار شریک ملزم سے نمایاں طور پر مختلف اور زیادہ سنگین ثابت نہ کیا جائے، اسے بھی مساوی رعایت سے محروم نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔

4۔ غیر ممنوعہ دفعات کے حوالے سے

یہ امر بھی نہایت اہم ہے کہ درخواست گزار کے خلاف عائد کردہ دفعات 420، 468، 471 اور 109 PPC ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 497 میں مذکور prohibitory clause کے دائرے میں نہیں آتیں۔ ایسے مقدمات میں بنیادی اصول یہ ہے کہ ضمانت کی منظوری معمول اور ضمانت سے انکار استثنا ہوتا ہے۔ چنانچہ جہاں ملزم کے خلاف عائد الزامات ممنوعہ شق کے اندر نہ آتے ہوں، وہاں عدالت کو ضمانت سے انکار کے لیے غیر معمولی اور مضبوط وجوہات درکار ہوتی ہیں، خصوصاً جب مقدمہ مزید تفتیش کا متقاضی بھی ہو۔

5۔ مزید حراست کی ضرورت نہ ہونے کے حوالے سے

مزید یہ کہ درخواست گزار کے خلاف تفتیش میں مطلوبہ مواد پہلے ہی برآمد کیا جا چکا ہے، تفتیش مکمل ہو چکی ہے اور چالان بھی عدالت میں پیش کیا جا چکا ہے۔ درخواست گزار اب مزید تفتیش، برآمدگی یا کسی ایسے مقصد کے لیے مطلوب نہیں جس کے لیے اس کی مسلسل حراست ضروری قرار دی جا سکے۔ لہٰذا ایسی صورتِ حال میں محض ان الزامات کی بنیاد پر اسے مزید جیل میں رکھنا، جو خود دفعہ 497 کے ممنوعہ دائرے میں نہیں آتے، کوئی مفید مقصد پورا نہیں کرے گا، بالخصوص جب درخواست گزار نے بادی النظر میں مزید تفتیش کا مقدمہ بھی قائم کر لیا ہے۔

مختصراً، تفتیش کے دوران جمع کیا گیا دستاویزی و ڈیجیٹل مواد، بشمول موبائل فونز، آڈیو/ویڈیو ریکارڈنگز اور الیکٹرانک ریکارڈ، اپنی اصالت، قابلِ قبولیت، relevancy اور probative value کے تعین کے لیے باقاعدہ شہادت اور جرح کا متقاضی ہے، جس کا فیصلہ مرحلۂ ضمانت پر کرنا مناسب نہیں۔ ان امور کی حتمی تعیین معزز Trial Court کی جانب سے شہادت ریکارڈ ہونے کے بعد ہی کی جا سکتی ہے۔ مزید برآں، شریک ملزم محمد موزن علی، جس کے انٹرویو اور ویزا دستاویزات مبینہ طور پر تفتیش کے محرکات میں شامل تھیں، پہلے ہی مورخہ 01.04.2026 کو بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت کی رعایت حاصل کر چکا ہے، لہٰذا اصولِ یکسانیت کے تحت درخواست گزار بھی مساوی سلوک کا مستحق ہے۔ مزید یہ کہ درخواست گزار کے خلاف عائد دفعات 420، 468، 471 اور 109 PPC دفعہ 497 کے ممنوعہ دائرے میں شامل نہیں، چنانچہ ایسے مقدمات میں ضمانت اصول اور انکار استثنا ہے۔ چونکہ متعلقہ مواد برآمد کیا جا چکا ہے، چالان پیش ہو چکا ہے اور درخواست گزار اب مزید تفتیش کے لیے مطلوب نہیں، اس لیے اس کی مزید حراست کا کوئی مفید مقصد باقی نہیں رہتا۔ چنانچہ موجودہ معاملہ دفعہ 497(2) Cr.P.C. کے مفہوم میں مزید تفتیش کا متقاضی ہے اور درخواست گزار ضمانت بعد از گرفتاری کی رعایت کا مستحق قرار پاتا ہے۔

Crl.P.L.A. No.100-K/2026, Syed Muhammad Ashfaq v. The State through Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan
فیصلہ مورخہ 24.09.2026، معزز جسٹس عقیل احمد عباسی۔

ٹیکس دہندگان کے لیے اہم خبرایف بی آر نے انکم ٹیکس گوشوارے جمع کرانے کی آخری تاریخ میں 15 اکتوبر 2026 تک توسیع کر دی، نوٹ...
30/09/2026

ٹیکس دہندگان کے لیے اہم خبر

ایف بی آر نے انکم ٹیکس گوشوارے جمع کرانے کی آخری تاریخ میں 15 اکتوبر 2026 تک توسیع کر دی، نوٹیفکیشن جاری۔

2023 Y L R 264 [Lahore]Before Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, JSAIF ULLAH---PetitionerVersusThe STATE and 6 others---RespondentsWr...
30/09/2026

2023 Y L R 264 [Lahore]

Before Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J

SAIF ULLAH---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE and 6 others---Respondents

Writ Petition No. 68262 of 2021, decided on 15th November, 2021.

Police Order, 2002---

----Art. 18-A(2)--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 173---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-A (i), 337-F(iii), 148 & 149---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---"Further investigation" and "re-investigation"---Distinction---Second change of investigation---Attempt to Qatl-i-Amd, Shajjah-i-Khafifah, Ghayr-Jaifah Mutafahimah and rioting armed with deadly weapons were alleged in FIR---Petitioner was aggrieved of order passed by authorities directing second change of investigation--- Validity--- Further investigation, was continuation of earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or re-investigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether---Further investigation was done to find a concrete evidence or strong evidence against the person whereas re-investigation was done when case was on wrong track or convicted was found not guilty and criminal was on loose---First Information Report was registered on 26-12-2020 and after two successive investigations one accused was found involved whereas other four were found innocent and challan was put into the Court---Recommending second change of investigation by Board mentioned in its report that investigation was not conducted on right lines---No reasons were mentioned in the order for transfer of investigation which was the requirement of Art. 18-A(2) of Police Order, 2002, nor was slackness or inefficiency of earlier investigator pointed out and even action was not recommended against them---Question who made the fire, depended upon role assigned to accused in crime report which could only be determined through recording of evidence before Trial Court---If police had received any additional information in such respect at later stage it could possibly be placed before Trial Court through another report under S.173, Cr.P.C.---High Court set aside the order passed by authorities permitting second change of investigation---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Hasil Baluch v. Deputy Inspector (Police) Crimes Karachi and 3 others 1983 PCr.LJ 2357; Muhammad Aslam v. Additional Secretary PLD 1987 SC 103; Nasira Surriya v. Muhammad Aslam 1990 SCMR 12; Riaz Hussain and others v. The State 1986 SCMR 1934; Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. The State 1992 SCMR 1983; Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State 2012 SCMR 428; Muhammad Younas and others v. I.G. Police and others 1999 PCr.LJ 163 and 1999 MLD 2276 ref.

Muhammad Shazib Riaz for Petitioner.

Manzoor Ahmad Warraich, A.A.G. with Muhammad Yaqoob, D.S.P. City Kasur, Ihsan Elahi, Inspector/Reader and Saif Ullah, Inspector Focal Person R.P.O. Office Sheikhupura, Muhammad Ashraf, A.S.I. Police Station Saddar Kasur for Respondents.

🔴 ORDER

MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J.--Through this constitutional petition Saif Ullah petitioner has expressed his grievance against an order dated 08.10.2021, whereby the recommendation of Regional Standing Board, Sheikhupura Region allowing second change of investigation of case FIR No.1077/2020 dated 26.12.2020 under sections 324/ 337-A(i) / 337-F(iii) / 148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Saddar Kasur, has been approved by Regional Police Officer, Sheikhupura Region at Lahore.

2. Heard.

3. Consequent upon the contentions of proponents, it is desirable to explain the difference between the concepts "Further investigation" and "Re-investigation" or "Fresh investigation". The meaning of "further" is additional, more or supplemental; "further investigation", therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or re-investigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. Further investigation is done to find a concrete evidence or strong evidence against the person; whereas re-investigation is done when the case is in wrong track or the convicted is found not guilty and the criminal is on loose.

4. Investigation is the domain of police, to initiate at its own or on the direction of higher authority or by the court of competent jurisdiction. Concept of directing investigation and further investigation is rooted in our criminal justice system; it is tracked from the provisions contained in sections 155, 156, 157, 159, and 202, Cr.P.C. (herein after may be referred as the "Code") which deal with directing investigation or further investigation at initial stage and section 173 of the Code for a control over further investigation later at developed point of time. Section 155 postulates investigation of non-cognizable offence with the permission of concerned Magistrate. Section 156 authorizes the police officer to conduct investigation of a cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate, like direction can also be passed by the concerned Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code. Similarly, section 157 deals with directing investigation and also authorizes the police officer to postpone or abandon the investigation on following grounds:-

(a) Where local investigation dispensed with: When any information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer Incharge of a police-station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;

(b) Where police-officer Incharge sees no sufficient ground for investigation: If it appears to the officer Incharge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.

Clause (b) postulates the abandoning of investigation, yet such action of police is to be reported to the Magistrate through superior officer as mentioned in section 158 of the Code and such superior officer while forwarding the report to Magistrate can pass any instructions to police officer over such report. The sort of instruction could be a direction to continue with investigation until any order received from the Magistrate. This procedure has well been explained in the Rule 25.9 of Police Rules, 1934 with the heading of "Optional Investigation". The Magistrate on receiving such report can direct following three actions:-

1. May direct an investigation

2. Depute a Subordinate Magistrate to hold a preliminary inquiry

3. Otherwise, to dispose of, the case in manner provided in this Code

Section 157 of the Code in a broader sense gives powers to police to stop investigation and this action can be endorsed or null by the Superior officer subject to order of Magistrate. This section also authorizes the Magistrate to hold an inquiry and to proceed further or dispose of the case in the manner provided in the code; if after inquiry he directs the investigation, it shall follow, yet if he finds nothing, he can agree with the police opinion when police submit a report of cancellation of case, and section 173(3), Cr.P.C authorizes him to do so. Similarly, in case of private prosecution, Magistrate can direct investigation under section 202, of Cr.P.C.

5. The above arrangements are for the preliminary stage when the criminal action is initiated against any suspect, yet on a developed stage when case is ripe for its presentation before the court either in the form of interim report within 14 plus 3 days from the registration of FIR or complete report thereafter, the situation with respect to further investigation is changed. Concept of submission of interim report within 14 days has been introduced by amending the Cr.P.C. in year 1992 through Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act XXV of 1992 w.e.f. 12.12.1992, otherwise there was no limitation on conclusion of investigation within any stipulated period; therefore, under Police Rules, 1934, there is a concept of submission of incomplete report in certain circumstance which is now known as interim report. There is no cavil to the proposition that police can forward as many incomplete reports as it considers appropriate indicating collection of some additional incriminating material till the submission of complete report.

6. While submitting interim/incomplete report, it is mandatory, that it should be forwarded through superior officer who can direct further investigation till the order of Magistrate/court and the only section that authorizes such action is regulated under section 173(2), Cr.P.C. which runs as under;

(2) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under Section 158, the report shall, in any cases in which the Provincial Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer incharge of the police-station to make further investigation.

(Emphasize supplied)

It clearly indicates that further investigation is subject to "pending the order of Magistrate", Proviso to section 173(1) says that Court shall commence the trial on the basis of interim report, unless, for reasons to be recorded, the Court decides that the trial should not so commence. Meaning thereby if the court does not commence the trial, it would be presumed that the police should continue on for further investigation. "Pending the orders of Magistrate" has a wide connotation that Court can also direct to collect such and such information in the matter apart from the functions assigned to prosecution to supervise the process in order to build a case on the basis of evidential and public interest tests but if the court commences the trial on such interim/incomplete report, even then police is bound to submit complete report later because there is no limitation for conclusion of investigation in any stipulated period which is mentioned in the opening lines of section 173, Cr.P.C. that "Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay". On the moral plane a second investigation by police cannot be hit down because in most cases it would be undertaken only for the purpose or finding the truth of seeking available evidence which for some reasons was not available at the previous stage. Reliance is on case reported as Hasil Baluch v. Deputy Inspector (Police) Crimes Karachi and 3 others 1983 PCr.LJ 2357; however, police should avoid submission of multiple police reports which do not help the court to arrive at right conclusion.

7. The above discussion shows that the entrustment of investigation to any other officer for further investigation was being regulated through such provisions without any system breakdown. Later intervention to investigation through influential people became rampant in order to get favourable reports and Honourable Supreme Court has time and again warned about this meddling, declaring it a recent innovation and the purpose is mala fide and directed that it should be deprecated because this is in no way assists the Courts in coming to a correct conclusion. Reference is made to cases reported as Muhammad Aslam v. Additional Secretary PLD 1987 SC 103; Nasira Surriya v. Muhammad Aslam, 1990 SCMR 12 and Riaz Hussain and others v. The State 1986 SCMR 1934.

8. Later the police function of investigation was separated through promulgation of Police Order, 2002 and the concept of direction for further investigation was made part of Article 18 of the Order ibid; it was strengthened through introduction of an institution of Supervisory Officer embodied in Article 18 of Police Order, 2002; relevant Sub-Articles 9 and 10 are as follows:-

(9) The supervisory officers---

(a) shall ensure timely completion and verification of investigation; and

(b) may summon the Investigation Officer or team of officers, review the case file, evaluate the evidence and, in that case, shall issue instructions to the Investigation Officer or team of officers in the form of case diary.

(10) A supervisory officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police may verify the correctness of the investigation and accuracy of conclusions of investigation by writing a case diary before submission of report in the court.

(Emphasize supplied)

Sub-Articles (11), (12) and (13) of Article 18 of Order ibid also deal with the situations when direction for further investigation can be ordered.

9. In addition to above Article, another Article 18A was introduced which underwent many changes finally in year 2013; this section authorizes certain police authorities to order transfer of investigation not once but for three times. The wisdom of legislature while introducing this Article was not only to have a check and control over multiple transfers of investigation but to strengthen the concept of re-investigation and not the further investigation which was being carried out successfully since centuries. What marks an investigation to go for further investigation or re-investigation depends upon the line of inquiry it is being run on. In a criminal case of murder, there could be following lines of inquiry:-

Whether the act is;

homicidal

Suicidal or

Accidental

Likewise in a case of forgery, an action can either be dishonest, fraudulent or result of innocent misrepresentation and other offences do contain such like lines of inquiry depending upon the circumstances. In every category, if some additional material or evidence is required to cater to the pre-charge requirement, case shall be entrusted for further investigation and it could conveniently be done by the superior or supervisory officers; therefore, transfer of investigation should not be ordered except where serious allegations of corruption of any kind is levelled against the Investigating Officer; but if there are any apprehension that police are investigating the case on the wrong lines, re-investigation would be the best choice and it could be done through transfer of investigation because it now needs more talented and expert members to attend it on such sophisticated lines. Similarly, if investigation requires modern gadgetry involving forensic techniques or collection of evidence could only be possible through personal scientific knowledge of any expert. List is not exhaustive, yet transfer of investigation can also be allowed if the police have personal interest being complainant or case is registered against the illegal acts of police. Reference is made to case reported as Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. The State 1992 SCMR 1983 wherein Honourable Supreme Court has desired that:-
the relevant law should be amended in such a way that cases of police encounters be allowed to be investigated by independent agencies and presented in the Court of law at level of Sessions Court for examination and consideration of plea of police encounter strictly according to law.

In a later case reported as "Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State" 2012 SCMR 428, the august Court has observed, while hearing a case of police encounter, as under:-

"The standard of proof in this case should have been far higher as compared to any other criminal case when according to the prosecution it was a case of police encounter. It was, thus, desirable and even imperative that it should have been investigated by some other agency. Police, in this case, could not have been investigators of their own cause. Such investigation which is woefully lacking independent character cannot be made basis for conviction in a charge involving capital sentence ."

Re-investigation by all means is known as fresh investigation wiping out of all effects of earlier one; therefore, three tiers for change of investigation introduced in Article 18A of Police Order, 2002 could well be comprehended, showing intention of legislature to set the process of investigation on right track and modern techniques which is possible because superior officers had the better opportunities to learn and get trainings based on international best practices in the relevant field. This should be the priority before directing the change of investigation and order for transfer of investigation must contain reasons appealable to prudent mind depending upon the circumstances of every case.

10. Authority transferring the investigation or ordering re-investigation should comment upon the quality of investigation and pinpoint the shortcomings or lapses made by Investigating Officer. Authority if convinced after going through the record that either the Investigating Officer is inefficient or incapable or has connived with one of the parties for any reason, may transfer the investigation after recording reasons therefor in writing and must propose action against the said Investigating Officer for misconduct, inefficiency and corruption as the case may be. Reliance is on case reported as Muhammad Younas and others v. I.G. Police and others 1999 PCr.LJ 163 and 1999 MLD 2276

11. In the case in hand which was registered on 26.12.2020, after two successive investigations, one accused Abdul Hanan was found involved, whereas, other four accused Riaz, Habib, Saif Ullah and Nabeel were found innocent and challan was put into the court. While recommending second change of investigation the Board has mentioned in its report that investigation was not conducted on the right lines. No reasons is mentioned in the impugned order for transfer of investigation which is requirement of Article 18A(2) of the Police Order, 2002, nor was slackness or inefficiency of earlier investigator pointed out and even action has also not been recommended against them. Question who made the fire depends upon the role assigned to the accused in the crime report which could only be determined through recording of evidence before the trial court. If the police receive any additional information in this respect at a later stage it could possibly be placed before the court through another report under section 173, Cr.P.C. therefore, this instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed for 2nd change of investigation is set aside having no legal effect.

MH/S-7/L Petition allowed.

Address

13 Fane Road
Lahore
54000

Opening Hours

Monday 09:00 - 17:00
Tuesday 09:00 - 17:00
Wednesday 09:00 - 17:00
Thursday 09:00 - 17:00
Friday 09:00 - 17:00
Saturday 09:00 - 17:00

Website

,

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Hassan Law Chamber posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category