Lahore:
Lahore High Court (LHC) has given that no further investigation of an investigation agency should be carried out after the cancellation report prepared by an IO is approved by a magistrate – until and unless the magisterial order is set aside by another court.
In a verdict, written by Justice Ali Zia Bajwa of the LHC Multan bench, observed that illegalities committed by an investigative agency not only undermine the holiness of the proper process, but also leads to a complete spontaneous abort that culminated with illegal withholding of a citizen.
He set five guidelines to decide whether any further investigation can be legally performed after a magistrate’s approval 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 in question, this fact must be immediately entered into in the relevant police register. IO should also record this development in the case file and notices it duly in the police diary.
Before ordering the transfer of an investigation, the relevant board of directors as imagined under Article 18-A must carefully investigate the entire record of finding the criminal case legally in existence and has not been canceled or slowed down.
When the investigation of a criminal case is transferred, it must be carried out solely by the trusted officer and in any circumstances does not return to the previous IO. The magistrates that handle custody or trial question must exercise strict vigilance and carefully examine the post, in order for their orders inadvertently to legitimize an illegality.
The case
Senter Muhammad Sarfraz had sought bail before the occasion of a four that was registered against him in accordance with section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code at the Basti Malook police station in Multan.
The petitioner’s lawyer claimed that despite the criminal case that had been canceled by the magistrate in question in the light of the cancellation report prepared by the IO, the police remain resolute in their attempt to arrest the petitioner.
The police filed rather than challenging the Master’s Master’s Order an application for the district’s standing board under Article 18-A of the police order, 2002, which sought the first change in investigation.
The Board of Directors rejected the request and assessed it inappropriate to transfer the investigation. Subsequently, an application was submitted to the regional standing board, which sought a transfer of investigation.
As a result, on March 6, 2024, the case was handed over to the regional investigation branch for further investigation, blatantly ignoring the fact that the cancellation report had already been approved by the magistrate and that there was no criminal case legally in the field at that time.
The record also reveals that after the regional standing board transferred the investigation to the regional investigation branch, it was then returned to the local police station.
