Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 1306
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Afzal Lone, J
MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No. 443 and Civil Miscellaneous No.394 of 1988, decided on 7th February, 1988.
Special Courts For Speedy Trials Act (XV of 1987)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 5‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 173‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Quashing of investigation and report under 5.173, Cr.P.C.‑‑Challan allegedly based on dishonest investigation submitted in Special Court (Special Trials), constituted under Act XV of 1987‑‑Special Court, held, was competent to examine whether challan submitted before it, satisfied requirements of law or not‑ Petitioner could seek his remedy before Special Court.
Basit, S.M. Zubair, Addl. A.‑G. with Altaf Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.
Talib Hussain Rizvi for Respondents (in C.M. 394 of 1988).
JUDGMENT
This case pertains to F.I.R. No.12, dated 2‑1‑1987, lodged by the petitioner with Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala, in respect of an occurrence in which his five relatives were murdered. The case was investigated by Malik Tahir Mahmood, S.H.O. respondent No.3 herein, against whom serious allegations of misuse of power and sabotaging investigation for corrupt motive at the instance of the accused, have been levelled by the petitioner. To highlight the alleged misuse of powers by respondent No.3, certain aspects of, the investigation conducted by him, have been referred to in the body of the writ petition, particularly in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 thereof.
2. The petitioner moved the Inspector‑General of Police (Annexure III) for transfer of the investigation to some honest Police Officer. A copy of the order, dated 2‑8‑1987 passed by the then Additional I.G. (Now I.G.) has been placed on the file wherein he adversely commented upon the integrity of the respondent No.3 and directed the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala to have the investigation conducted by some officer of his satisfaction. It appears that subsequently Rana Mehrban Khan the then S.H.O. Qila Didar Singh was nominated as the Investigating Officer,
3. It is discernible from the record that the challan has been filed in the Court under the signatures of respondent No.3 and now the case is pending in the Special Court, Gujranwala constituted under Act No.XV of 1987.
4. The grievance brought by the petitioner before this Court, is, that no proper and honest investigation was conducted and in order to help the accused, respondent No.3 throughout shadowed the case and influenced the investigation. A direction is, therefore, caught to be issued to the Authorities concerned to scrape the investigation conducted by respondent No.3 and file a fresh report under section 173, Cr.P.C. in the Court concerned.
5. In the parawise comments filed on behalf of the respondents it is averred that findings of respondent No.5 who prepared the challan on 1‑3‑1987 were endorsed by the S.D.P.O. It is also added that the case was further investigated by Rana Mehraban Khan, S.I. Police, under the supervision of the S.P. Headquarter, Gujranwala but he found himself in complete agreement with the investigation conducted by respondent No.3.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the investigation on which report under section 173, Cr.P.C. is founded, is no investigation in the eye of law and, therefore, the said report is liable to be quashed in exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The contention, however, need not be evaluated and adjudicated upon in these proceedings, for, it is not disputed by both the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Additional Advocate‑General that it is within the competence of the learned Special Court to examine the issue as to whether or not challan filed in the Court, satisfies the requirements of law. The petitioner may, therefore, urge in accordance with law, the contention directed against the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Court. The writ petition is disposed of.
S.A./M‑681/L Petition dismissed.