Lahore:
The High Court of Lahore (LHC) judged that no additional investigation will be carried out by an investigation agency after the cancellation report prepared by an IO is approved by an magistrate – until the masterful order is canceled by another court.
In a verdict, written by judge Ali Zia Bajwa of the Multan bench of the LHC observed that the illegalities committed by an investigation agency undergo not only the sacredness of a regular procedure but also led to a complete error of justice, culminating in the illegal detention of a citizen.
He established five guidelines to decide whether an additional investigation can be legally carried out after approval by a magistrate of a cancellation report filed by an IO.
He noted that as soon as the cancellation report prepared by an investigation agency agrees with the magistrate concerned, this fact must be quickly included in the police register concerned. The IO should also record this development in the file, noting it duly in the police newspaper.
Before ordering the transfer of an investigation, the competent council, as envisaged by article 18-A of the police order, 2002, must meticulously examine the entire file to determine whether the criminal case remains legally in existence and has not been canceled or canceled.
When the investigation into a criminal case is transferred, it must be carried out exclusively by the officer entrusted and will not return under any circumstances from the previous IO. Magistrates giving the pre -trial detention or preliminary issues must exercise strict vigilance and closely examine the file, for fear that their orders inadvertently legitimize illegality.
The case
The petitioner Muhammad Sarfraz had asked for a release under bond before arrest in a FIR registered against him under article 392 of the Pakistani Penal Code at the Basti Malok police station in Multan.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that despite the criminal case having been canceled by the order of the magistrate concerned in the light of the cancellation report prepared by the OI, the police remain resolved in his attempt to arrest the petitioner.
Police, rather than contesting the masterful prescription, made a request to the district board of directors under article 18-A of the police order, 2002, requesting the first change of investigation.
The council refused the request, deeming inappropriate to transfer the investigation. Subsequently, a request was submitted to the Permanent Regional Council requesting a transfer of investigation.
Consequently, on March 6, 2024, the case was given to the regional investigation department for a more in -depth investigation, clearly ignoring the fact that the cancellation report had already been approved by the magistrate and that no criminal case was legally in the field at the time.
The file also reveals that after the transfer of the Regional Assistance Council, the investigation in the regional investigation department, he was then returned to the local police station.
