PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 453 (DB)
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Syed
Shahbaz Ali Rizvi and Ali Zia
Bajwa, JJ.
RAHAT ABBAS and another--Petitioners
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 1979-B of 2024, decided on 29.7.2024.
Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution,
Functions, and Powers) Act, 2006--
----S. 9(5)(2)--Defective
investigation report--Conduct of prosecution--The ambit of Section 9(5)(a) of
The Prosecution Act is strictly confined to act of returning a defective
investigation report for rectification of its deficiencies--It does not extend
to directing Investigating Officer to reinvestigate or craft evidence against
accused--“A” “defective investigation report” is intrinsically distinct from a “defective investigation”
itself--Allowing prosecution to review and direct rectification of
investigative flaws would unleash a torrent of reinvestigations, creating ample
opportunities for tampering with evidence in an overzealous pursuit of
convictions in every criminal case--Court is cognizant of fact that, following
promulgation of The Prosecution Act, prosecution and investigating agency
collaborate closely from very inception of a criminal case--However, at
conclusion of investigation, when investigation report reaches prosecutor, he
cannot be permitted to return it to investigating agency simply because it
lacks plausible and cogent evidence sufficient for conviction--Instead, report
should be forwarded to Court, accompanied by his assessment as required under
Section 9(7) of The Prosecution Act--This ensures that prosecution does not overstep
its bounds, but rather lets chips fall where they may within judicial
process--Returning investigation report to investigating agency after
completion of investigation to rectify defects in investigation process would
constitute an overreach, going beyond purview of provisions of The Prosecution
Act--This would be akin to overstepping one’s bounds, disrupting intended
separation of responsibilities within criminal justice system. [P. 462] A
Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution,
Functions, and Powers) Act, 2006--
----S.
9--Criminal Procedure Code, (V of 1898), S. 173--Conduct of
prosecution--Although in domain of criminal justice system, timely submission
of an investigation report is primarily governed by Section 173 of Code read
with Section 9 of The Prosecution Act, involving investigating agency and
prosecution, each bearing distinct responsibilities, but it would be unjust to
lay blame solely upon these two agencies for tardy submission of investigation
reports--Within legal framework, along with investigating agency and
prosecution, various other stakeholders have responsibility to curb issue of
delayed investigation reports with due diligence--Area Magistrates, Trial
Courts, Criminal Justice Coordination Committees, and Superintendents of
Prisons also stand as pivotal actors in our criminal justice system to ensure
timely submission of investigation reports--They shoulder a statutory burden to
ensure swift submission of investigation reports, as mandated by Section 173 of
Code--Court would like to elaborate legal framework and measures prescribed
therein to secure timely submission of investigation reports, as envisioned
under Section 173 of Code.
[P.
463] B
Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution,
Functions, and Powers) Act, 2006--
----S.
13(a)(d)--The essence of duty prescribed for Investigating Officer towards
prosecution is to engage prosecution from inception of a criminal case, forging
a partnership of vigilance--This responsibility bestows upon prosecution role
of a watchdog, tasked with overseeing punctual submission of investigation
reports--Through this shared vigilance, timely submission of investigation
reports can be assured, ensuring seamless progression of criminal cases--When
an investigation report is delayed, responsibility does not rest solely with
investigating agency; prosecution department must also shoulder its share of
accountability, as mandated by The Prosecution Act--This dual responsibility
emphasizes collaborative nature of their roles in timely submission of
investigation reports--Under Section 13(9)(d) of The Prosecution Act, a
prosecutor is obliged to report any delays in submission of investigation
reports to District Public Prosecutor--This issue may also be escalated to
district head of investigation and Prosecutor General, paving way for necessary
actions against Investigating Officer--If a prosecutor fails to fulfill this
mandatory duty, proceedings should also be initiated against him under The
Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act, 2018 (hereinafter “The
Inspectorate Act”).
[Pp.
464, 465] C
Role of Magistrate--
----The Area Magistrate holds
paramount responsibility of overseeing every investigation conducted within his
jurisdiction--It is his bounden duty to ensure that investigation of each
criminal case is carried out with steadfast adherence to law--It was already
authoritatively observed in landmark judgment rendered by Supreme Court of
Pakistan. [P.
465] D
PLD
2005 Lahore 470.
Judicial Remand and Remand in
Police Custody--
----The law distinctly delineates distinction between remand to
police custody, as regulated under Section 167 of Code, and remand to judicial
custody, governed by Section 344 of same Code--Section 344 of Code envisages
that no extension of judicial remand shall be granted without reasonable cause,
thereby safeguarding liberty of accused against arbitrary
detention--“Reasonable cause” is a legal standard that
requires a justification rooted in logic and facts, demonstrating that
extension of judicial remand is necessary and warranted under
circumstances--This concept is pivotal in preventing arbitrary and unjust
detention, ensuring that any decision to prolong custody is grounded in
objective and rational considerations--The requirement of demonstrating reasonable
cause under Section 344 of Code for extension of judicial remand serves as an
effective judicial check on investigating agency and prosecution, guarding
against undue delay in submitting investigation report--Magistrates who extend
judicial remand without submission of an investigation report in absence of
reasonable cause, in effect, become complicit in illegality perpetrated by
investigating agency or prosecution--The true essence of Section 344 of Code
lies in its ability to prevent abuses of power by police or prosecution through
withholding of investigation reports--It is high time that Magistrates, as
judicial officers, recognize their duty to eradicate issue of delayed
submission of investigation reports by rigorously applying Section 344 of Code--By
doing so, they can ensure justice is served promptly and uphold integrity of
legal process. [Pp.
465 & 466] E
Duty of Courts--
----In case of Rehan supra, Supreme Court of Pakistan
gave a reminder regarding imperative duty of Courts to ensure swift submission
of investigation reports and prompt commencement of trials--This ruling serves
as a stern reminder to uphold statutory obligations and prioritize expeditious
administration of justice. [P. 466]
F
Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978--
----R.
395--Duty of Sessions Judge--Under Rule 395 of Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978,
every Sessions Judge and Officer Incharge of Prosecution are required to visit
undertrial prisoners in their jurisdiction once a month--This rule aims to
identify and address cases of undue delay--It also mandates Superintendent of
Prison to submit a monthly list to District and Sessions Judge, Officer
Incharge of Prosecution, and Inspector General (Prisons), detailing names and
particulars of all undertrial prisoners detained for over three months,
excluding those committed to Sessions--The primary objective of these monthly
visits by District and Sessions Judge is to relieve hardships of prisoners and
ensure strict adherence to law--In present case, effective implementation of
this rule could have resolved issue at hand, but regrettably, it was not
enforced--The foregoing discussion clearly reveals that timely submission of
investigation reports is not solely duty of investigating agency--Rather, it is
a shared responsibility among concerned Prosecutors, Area Magistrates, Criminal
Justice Coordination Committees, and Superintendents of Prisons--Regrettably,
all these stakeholders have previously failed to fulfill their duties--Court is
therefore compelled to issue following directions to ensure that investigation
reports reach trial Court within stipulated time, leaving no stone unturned to
uphold integrity of criminal justice system.
[P.
468] G & H
Mr. Muhammad Ali Butt,
Advocate for Petitioners.
Syed Farhad Ali Shah Prosecutor General Punjab assisted by Muhammad
Abdul Wadood, Addl. P.G., Sultan Akbar Chattha and Muhammad Ali
Shohab, Deputy Prosecutors General, Syed Saleem Haider, DDPP along
with Muhammad Idrees, Additional Inspector General of Police
(Investigation) Punjab, Dr. Muhammad Irfan Ashiq, Director Forensic
Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Khalida Sattar, Law Officer PFSA, Syed
Ali, DPO, D.G. Khan, Ahmed Mohay-ud-Din, former DPO D.G. Khan for State.
Date of hearing: 9.5.2024.
Judgment
Ali Zia Bajwa, J.--Through
this petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C. (hereinafter “the Code”) the petitioners
seek their release on post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 370/2022, dated
10.06.2022, offences under Sections 324, 353, 186, 337-H(2), 148 and 149, PPC
read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered with Police
Station City Taunsa Sharif, District Dera Ghazi Khan.
2. During
the course of proceedings on 25.04.2024, it was observed that, although the
aforementioned criminal case had been registered as far back as 10.06.2022, the
police report as envisaged under Section 173 of the Code (hereinafter “the
investigation report”)
was yet to be submitted. Consequently, the District Police Officer of Dera
Ghazi Khan, along with the Incharge of Investigations for the said District,
was directed to appear in person. Additionally, the reports were requisitioned
from the Anti-Terrorism Court, Dera Ghazi Khan, and the Special Public
Prosecutor to explain the reasons for extending judicial remand without
requiring the investigation agency to submit its investigation report.
3. On
02.05.2024, the reports requisitioned from the District Police Officer and the
Special Prosecutor of the Anti-Terrorism Court were duly filed. The report
submitted by the District Police Officer revealed that an inquiry conducted by
the Superintendent of Police (Investigation) concluded with the initiation of
departmental action against the delinquent police officials responsible for the
delayed submission of the investigation report. However, the report remained
conspicuously silent on the reasons for the inaction on the part of the
supervisory officer. The report submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor
disclosed that the main reason for the non-submission of the investigation
report was the nonavailability of the final opinion from the Medical Officer,
as well as the reports from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The report
filed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Dera Ghazi Khan, indicated that, despite a
direction being issued on one occasion to submit the investigation report, the
needful was not done. The Prosecutor General of Punjab was issued a notice
regarding the situation and directed to appear before the Court. Additionally,
the Additional Inspector General of Police (Investigation), Punjab, was
summoned. A report was also requisitioned from the Forensic Science Agency to
address the delayed preparation of the requisite reports.
4. Arguments
heard, and the requisite filed reports were perused.
5. The persistent issue of
delayed submission of investigation reports continues to plague our criminal
justice system. This enduring issue hampers not only the efficiency of judicial
proceedings but also impacts the overall integrity and reliability of criminal
trials. Delays in the investigation process strike at the very heart of truth,
undermining the fairness and sanctity of the investigation itself. In the
shadows of these delays, the insidious menace of tampering arises, weaving
falsehoods and padding evidence. False implications take root, distorting the
truth. Witnesses find their recollections fading, their vivid testimonies
growing dim and unreliable. As time goes by, the detailed facts that support a
criminal case fade away, leaving a shaky foundation where the truth once stood
strong. Moreover, such lags often translate into prolonged detentions for
suspects awaiting trial and an agonizing wait for victims seeking closure. The
notion of swift justice is consistently compromised by procedural delays in the
submission of investigation reports, highlighting systemic inefficiencies that
urgently require thorough scrutiny and reform. These persistent issues not only
obstruct the administration of justice but also weaken public trust in the
legal process, necessitating a critical reassessment of mechanism of submission
of investigation reports. The late submission of investigation reports
epitomizes the adage ‘justice delayed is justice denied.’ Despite numerous
instances[1]
where Constitutional Courts took cognizance of this issue and issued explicit
directions, the designated functionaries have consistently failed to fulfill
their duties.
6. The late submission of
an investigation report also violates several Constitutional provisions in
Pakistan, specifically Articles 4, 9, 10, and 10-A of the Constitution of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter “the Constitution”). Article 4 ensures that
individuals are dealt with according to the law, and delays violate the due
process of law. Article 9 protects personal security and liberty, which are
compromised by extended incarceration and prolonged uncertainty. Article 10
provides safeguards for arrest and detention, and delays hinder the right to a
timely trial resulting in prolonged detention. Finally, Article 10-A guarantees
a fair trial, and justice delayed is inherently unjust. The delayed submission
of investigation reports flagrantly breaches Article 10-A, undermining the
right to a fair trial. Such delays compromise due process, leave both the
accused and the victim in a state of uncertainty, and undermine public trust in
the judicial system.
7. The
procedure and timeframe for submitting an investigation report are delineated
under Section 173 of the Code. Initially, the statute did not specify a
concrete timeframe. It merely stipulated that the investigation should be
concluded without unnecessary delay. This provision was designed to ensure a
swift transition from investigation to prosecution, albeit without setting a
strict deadline. Although, the Code does not fix a timeline for the completion
of a criminal investigation, however, it mandates its completion without
unnecessary delay. The term “unnecessary delay” is inherently flexible, as its interpretation varies
with the nature and complexity of each case. In simpler cases, a delay might be
deemed unnecessary if basic investigative steps are not promptly taken and the
available evidence is not collected. Conversely, in more intricate cases
involving extensive evidence and multiple witnesses, what constitutes
unnecessary delay is more lenient, allowing for thorough and meticulous
investigation. This approach ensures that the criminal justice system remains
both efficient and fair, adapting to the unique demands of each case.
8. Due
to persistent and extraordinary delays in the submission of investigation
reports, the Government was compelled to introduce an amendment in 1992.[2]
This amendment involved the insertion of a proviso clause following sub-section
(1)(b) of Section 173 of the Code. This legislative change aimed to address the
inefficiencies and expedite the process, ensuring a timelier progression from
investigation to judicial proceedings. The inserted proviso clause has been
reproduced below for better understanding:
[provided that, where investigation is not
completed within a period of fourteen days from the date of recording of the
first information report under Section 154, the officer incharge of the police
station shall, within three days of the expiration of such period, forward to
the Magistrate through the Public Prosecutor, an interim report in the form
prescribed by the Provincial Government stating therein the result of the
investigation made until then and the Court shall commence the trial on the
basis of such interim report, unless, for reasons to be recorded, the Court
decides that the trial should not so commence],
The proviso clause added to Section
173(1) of the Code mandates that if an investigation is not completed within
fourteen days from the date the crime report is recorded under Section 154 of
the Code, the officer in charge of the police station must submit an interim
report to the Magistrate through the public prosecutor within three days after
this period expires. This interim report should detail the results of the
investigation conducted up to that point. Based on this interim report, the
Court is expected to commence the trial unless it records specific reasons for
deciding not to proceed. The legislation provided no discretionary power to the
public prosecutor to withhold the report and return it to the Investigating
Officer for any reason. This mandate ensures a streamlined process, whereby
once a report is received, the public prosecutor is compelled to proceed with
it according to the legal mandate without the option to delay or divert it for
additional investigation or corrections.
9. The concept of an interim investigation
report was introduced to serve a multitude of purposes. It establishes judicial
oversight to ensure prompt submission of investigation reports, enabling the
Court to evaluate whether the evidence suffices for trial and facilitating the
swift conclusion of criminal cases. It provides the Court with crucial insights
into the progress of the investigation, thereby upholding transparency and
fostering a more dynamic criminal justice system. Moreover, it empowers the
Court to expedite the investigation by issuing necessary directions when an
investigation is incomplete thus preventing undue delays. The submission of an
interim report also serves as a safeguard against the fabrication and dishonest
conduct by the Investigating Officer during subsequent stages of an
investigation. Given the constraints of Section 172 of the Code, which
classifies the case diaries as a privileged document, the interim report stands
as the sole document capable of reflecting the status of an investigation. It
ensures transparency, preventing the crafting and padding of evidence or the
false implication of an innocent person at a later stage.
10. The 1992 Amendment also introduced a
pivotal change in the procedure for submitting investigation reports, mandating
that such reports must be filed through the Public Prosecutor. The rationale
behind routing the investigation report through a prosecutor is to engage the
prosecutor at a very early stage, allowing him to assess the investigation report
and render his expert opinion. This early involvement is crucial for a
successful prosecutorial system, as it ensures that the case is meticulously
evaluated from the outset. By scrutinizing the report, the prosecutor can
identify any flaws or deficiencies, provide necessary corrections, and ensure
that the evidence is robust and legally cogent. It is pertinent to observe here
that when the law mandates an investigation report to be forwarded by a
specific authority, it must be done with the reasoning of that authority and
due diligence. This process should not reduce the authority to a mere post
office but should involve a thoughtful application of mind to ensure the
purpose of forwarding is fulfilled meaningfully. In forwarding even an interim
investigation report, the prosecutor should render his opinion and highlight
any shortcomings on the part of the investigating agency. This process ensures
that the report not only communicates findings but also undergoes preliminary
scrutiny to uphold the quality and integrity of the investigation.
11. The next relevant
provision of law is Section 9 of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service
(Constitution, Functions, and Powers) Act, 2006 (hereinafter ‘The Prosecution
Act’). For the matter at hand, Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 9 are
particularly relevant, which have been reproduced hereinafter: -
9. Conduct of
prosecution: -
.............................
(4) A police report under Section 173 of the
Code including a report of cancellation of the first information report or a
request for discharge of a suspect or an accused shall be submitted to a Court
through the Prosecutor appointed under this Act.
(5) The Prosecutor shall scrutinize the report
or the request and may--
(a) return the same
within three days to the officer incharge of police station or investigation
officer, as the case may be, if he finds the same to be defective, for removal
of such defects as may be identified by him; or
(b) if it is fit for
submission, file it before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 9 (4) and (5) of The Prosecution Act aligns with Section 173
of the Code. These provisions of law ensure a cohesive legal framework by
stipulating that investigation reports, including those related to the
cancellation of a First Information Report or requests for discharging a
suspect or accused, are routed through a designated prosecutor. Under clause
(a) of sub-section (5), Prosecutors are empowered to return any report they
find defective to the Investigating Officer
for correction. The cumulative effect of the afore-referred provisions of law
is to establish a mechanism for the timely submission of comprehensive
investigation reports. It is Section 9(5)(a) of The Prosecution Act, which
created potential complications by granting the prosecutor the authority to
point out the defects in an investigation report and return the same within
three days for removal of such defects. Although designed to create a
successful prosecutorial model, the above provisions have been misused by investigating
agencies and prosecutors. Returning defective investigation reports has led to
years-long delays in criminal cases. The misuse of Section 9 (5) (a) of The
Prosecution Act has rendered the proviso to Section 173(1) of the Code
redundant, as even interim reports are now withheld from the Courts under the
guise of defective reports. The law, originally enacted to facilitate the
successful prosecution of criminal cases, has unfortunately led to miscarriages
of justice in countless cases.
12. The ambit of Section 9(5)(a) of The
Prosecution Act is strictly confined to the act of returning a defective
investigation report for the rectification of its deficiencies. It does not
extend to directing the Investigating Officer to reinvestigate or craft the evidence
against the accused. In our considered opinion, a “defective investigation
report” is
intrinsically distinct from a “defective investigation” itself.
Allowing the prosecution to review and direct the rectification of
investigative flaws would unleash a torrent of reinvestigations, creating ample
opportunities for tampering with evidence in an overzealous pursuit of
convictions in every criminal case. We are cognizant of the fact that,
following the promulgation of The Prosecution Act, the prosecution and
investigating agency collaborate closely from the very inception of a criminal
case. However, at the conclusion of the investigation, when the investigation
report reaches the prosecutor, he cannot be permitted to return it to the
investigating agency simply because it lacks plausible and cogent evidence
sufficient for conviction. Instead, the report should be forwarded to the
Court, accompanied by his assessment as required under Section 9(7) of The
Prosecution Act. This ensures that the prosecution does not overstep its
bounds, but rather lets the chips fall where they may within the judicial
process. Returning the investigation report to the investigating agency after
the completion of the investigation to rectify defects in the investigation
process would constitute an overreach, going beyond the purview of the
provisions of The Prosecution Act. This would be akin to overstepping one’s
bounds, disrupting the intended separation of responsibilities within the
criminal justice system.
13. To discern what constitutes a defective
investigation report, one must turn to Section 173(1)(a) and (b) of the Code,
which delineates the requisite elements of such a report. The investigation
report, in a form prescribed by the Provincial Government, must include the
names of the parties involved, the nature of the information received, and the
identities of individuals familiar with the circumstances of the case.
Additionally, it must state whether the accused, if apprehended, has been
remanded into custody or released on bond, specifying whether the release with
or without sureties. Furthermore, the investigation report must be communicated
to complainant, as prescribed by the Provincial Government, regarding the
actions taken by the Investigating Officer. Should any of these essential
elements be missing from the investigation report, it may rightfully be deemed
defective. It does not mean that defective investigations shall be swept under
the rug. Section 13(9)(d) of The Prosecution Act explicitly mandates that a prosecutor
shall report to the District Public Prosecutor any details of investigations
conducted in violation of the law or the instructions issued by the Prosecutor
General. The District Public Prosecutor, in turn, may inform the head of
Investigation of the District and the Prosecutor General to take appropriate
action against the delinquent Investigating Officer. However, under the pretext
of a defective investigation, an investigation report cannot be withheld from
reaching the Court. Such conduct on the part of the prosecutors is a flagrant
violation of the mandate of the law.
14. The above-referred
provisions of the law clearly establish a mechanism where a report regarding an
incomplete investigation cannot be returned to the investigating agency but must
be forwarded to the Court. However, in the case of a defective investigation
report, the same may be returned to the investigating agency to rectify those
defects. Section 12(2) of The Prosecution Act further mandates that when a
prosecutor returns a defective report for correction, he must also set a
deadline for the removal of those defects. The prosecutor must ensure that the Investigating
Officer is not left in the lurch, providing clear instructions and a reasonable
timeframe, thus ensuring that the investigation proceeds without a hitch and no
stone is left unturned.
15. Although in the domain of the criminal
justice system, the timely submission of an investigation report is primarily
governed by Section 173 of the Code read with Section 9 of The Prosecution Act,
involving the investigating agency and prosecution, each bearing distinct
responsibilities, but it would be unjust to lay the blame solely upon these two
agencies for the tardy submission of investigation reports. Within the legal
framework, along with the investigating agency and prosecution, various other
stakeholders have the responsibility to curb the issue of delayed investigation
reports with due diligence. Area Magistrates, Trial Courts, Criminal Justice
Coordination Committees, and Superintendents of Prisons also stand as pivotal
actors in our criminal justice system to ensure the timely submission of
investigation reports. They shoulder a statutory burden to ensure the swift
submission of investigation reports, as mandated by Section 173 of the Code. We
would like to elaborate the legal framework and the measures prescribed therein
to secure the timely submission of investigation reports, as envisioned under
Section 173 of the Code.
Investigating Agency and
Prosecution Department
16. The investigating
agency and the prosecution department stand as the linchpins of the criminal
justice system, entrusted with formidable statutory duties under the provisions
of both the Code and The Prosecution Act regarding the timely submission of investigation
reports as has been discussed above in detail. The primary duty lies with the Investigating
Officer, who must diligently gather evidence and compile the investigation
report without unnecessary delay. His role is crucial, as delays often originate
at the investigation stage and result in violation of the mandate of Section
173 of the Code. Under the prevailing scheme of the law, the investigating
agency and the prosecution department operate in profound collaboration.
According to Section 12 of The Prosecution Act, upon registration of a criminal
case, it is mandatory to forward a copy of the crime report to the District
Public Prosecutor forthwith. The investigation officer is obliged to deliver
the investigation report to the designated prosecutor within the prescribed
period and if the investigation extends beyond the allotted timeframe, the
officer must document the reasons and duly inform the prosecutor of these
extenuating circumstances.
17. The essence of the duty prescribed for the Investigating
Officer towards the prosecution is to engage the prosecution from the inception
of a criminal case, forging a partnership of vigilance. This responsibility
bestows upon the prosecution the role of a watchdog, tasked with overseeing the
punctual submission of investigation reports. Through this shared vigilance,
the timely submission of investigation reports can be assured, ensuring the
seamless progression of criminal cases. When an investigation report is
delayed, the responsibility does not rest solely with the investigating agency;
the prosecution department must also shoulder its share of accountability, as
mandated by The Prosecution Act. This dual responsibility emphasizes the
collaborative nature of their roles in the timely submission of investigation
reports. As discussed above, under Section 13(9)(d) of The Prosecution Act, a
prosecutor is obliged to report any delays in the submission of investigation
reports to the District Public Prosecutor. This issue may also be escalated to
the district head of investigation and the Prosecutor General, paving the way
for necessary actions against the Investigating Officer. If a prosecutor fails
to fulfill this mandatory duty, proceedings should also be initiated against
him under The Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act, 2018
(hereinafter “The Inspectorate Act”).
Role
of a Magistrate
18. The Area Magistrate holds the paramount
responsibility of overseeing every investigation conducted within his
jurisdiction.[3]
It is his bounden duty to ensure that the investigation of each criminal case
is carried out with steadfast adherence to the law. It was already
authoritatively observed in landmark judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of
Pakistan in Hakeem Mumtaz supra that:
“On completion of period of police remand
under Section 167, Cr.P.C. if final or interim report has not been submitted
the Magistrate before whom accused has been produced for remand can insist upon
the prosecution by passing order in writing to comply with the provisions of
Section 173(1), Cr.P.C. or record reasons for remanding the accused to judicial
custody for want of challan in terms of Section 344, Cr.P.C. and simultaneously
direct initiation of departmental proceedings against police officer
responsible for submission of challan for not complying with mandatory
provision of law and proving thereby himself/themselves to be inefficient
police officers, the positive result shall start coming forward.”
The
law distinctly delineates the distinction between remand to police custody, as
regulated under Section 167 of the Code, and remand to judicial custody,
governed by Section 344 of the same Code. Section 344 of the Code envisages
that no extension of judicial remand shall be granted without reasonable cause,
thereby safeguarding the liberty of the accused against arbitrary detention.
“Reasonable cause‟ is a legal standard that
requires a justification rooted in logic and facts, demonstrating that
the extension of judicial remand is necessary and warranted under the
circumstances. This concept is pivotal in preventing arbitrary and unjust
detention, ensuring that any decision to prolong custody is grounded in
objective and rational considerations. The requirement of demonstrating
reasonable cause under Section 344 of the Code for the extension of judicial
remand serves as an effective judicial check on the investigating agency and
prosecution, guarding against undue delay in submitting the investigation
report. Magistrates who extend judicial remand without the submission of an
investigation report in the absence of reasonable cause, in effect, become complicit
in the illegality perpetrated by the investigating agency or the prosecution.
The true essence of Section 344 of the Code lies in its ability to prevent
abuses of power by the police or prosecution through the withholding of
investigation reports. It is high time that Magistrates, as judicial officers,
recognize their duty to eradicate the issue of delayed submission of
investigation reports by rigorously applying Section 344 of the Code. By doing
so, they can ensure justice is served promptly and uphold the integrity of the
legal process.
19. According to the Lahore High Court Rules
and Orders, any order to grant or extend judicial remand must explicitly
demonstrate good grounds. The relevant Rule, which highlights the necessity for
well-founded justification, has been reproduced hereinafter for further
elucidation: -
10. Procedure
when a remand for more than 15 days is required for completion of the case.--If
the limit of 15 days has elapsed, and there is still need for further
investigation by the Police, the procedure to be adopted is that laid down in
Section 344, Criminal Procedure Code. The case is brought on to the
Magistrate’s file and the accused, if detention is necessary, will remain in
magisterial custody. The case may be postponed or adjourned from time to time
for periods of not more than 15 days each, and as each adjournment expires the
accused must be produced before the Magistrate, and the order of adjournment
must show good reasons for making the order.[4]
In
the case of Rehan supra, the Supreme Court of Pakistan gave a reminder
regarding the imperative duty of the Courts to ensure the swift submission of
investigation reports and the prompt commencement of trials. This ruling serves
as a stern reminder to uphold statutory obligations and prioritize the
expeditious administration of justice.
Section 344, Cr.P.C. casts a heavy duty on
the Court to commence the trial as early as possible and not to adjourn the
case on flimsy grounds. It is also duty of the Court to ensure submission of complete
challan/final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. without any unnecessary delay.
20. Moreover, the
instructions issued by the Director General Directorate of District Judiciary
of this Court vide Letter No. 11125/DDJ/MNT, explicitly mandate that
Magistrates must actively fulfill their supervisory responsibilities to ensure
the timely submission of reports under Section 173 of the Code. According to
these directives, each Area Magistrate is obligated to maintain a meticulously
detailed register. This register should record the dates of the lodging of the
First Information Report (FIR), the commitment of the accused to judicial
custody, and the due date for the submission of the report under Section 173 of
the Code. Furthermore, it was emphatically stated that the submission of an
interim report cannot and should not be considered a substitute for the
comprehensive report required under Section 173 of the Code. Magistrates must
exercise vigilance and diligence to guarantee the prompt submission of the complete
investigation report. To this end, they are instructed to issue necessary
directives to the concerned Station House Officer (SHO), thereby ensuring that
the complete investigation reports are submitted as expeditiously as possible.
Criminal Justice Coordination
Committee
21. Under Article 109
of the Police Order, 2002, a Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (CJCC)
shall be established in every District. This committee is to be chaired by the
District and Sessions Judge, with its members comprising the District Police
Officer, the District Public Prosecutor, the District Superintendent of Jail,
the District Probation Officer, the District Parole Officer, and the Head of
Investigation. Under Article 111 of the Police Order, 2002, the CJCC is
entrusted with a comprehensive mandate to ensure the seamless operation and
continual improvement of the criminal justice system. The CJCC is dedicated to
developing understanding, cooperation, and coordination within the
administration of the criminal justice system. It is pertinent to note that the
instructions issued by the Director General of the Directorate of District
Judiciary were intended to guide and ensure the effective, meaningful, and
dynamic convening of CJCC meetings. These meetings were designed to address the
issue of unnoticed delays in the submission of reports under Section 173 of the
Code. However, it appears that these instructions were never faithfully
followed. The case at hand exemplifies the poor performance and ineffectiveness
of the CJCC, as this matter was neglected and remained unresolved. It raises
serious questions regarding the performance of the CJCC, functioning under the
supervision of a senior judicial officer. Effective and meaningful meetings of
CJCC taking up the issue of delayed submission of investigation reports could
have addressed the late submission of investigation report in this case.
District and Sessions Judge and
Superintendent of Prison.
22. Under Rule 395 of the Pakistan Prison
Rules, 1978, every Sessions Judge and the Officer Incharge of Prosecution are
required to visit the undertrial prisoners in their jurisdiction once a month.
This rule aims to identify and address cases of undue delay. It also mandates
the Superintendent of the Prison to submit a monthly list to the District and
Sessions Judge, the Officer Incharge of Prosecution, and the Inspector General
(Prisons), detailing the names and particulars of all undertrial prisoners
detained for over three months, excluding those committed to Sessions. The
primary objective of these monthly visits by the District and Sessions Judge is
to relieve the hardships of the prisoners and ensure strict adherence to the
law. In the present case, the effective implementation of this rule could have
resolved the issue at hand, but regrettably, it was not enforced.
23. The foregoing discussion clearly reveals
that the timely submission of investigation reports is not solely the duty of
the investigating agency. Rather, it is a shared responsibility among the
concerned Prosecutors, Area Magistrates, Criminal Justice Coordination
Committees, and Superintendents of Prisons. Regrettably, all these stakeholders
have previously failed to fulfill their duties. We are therefore compelled to
issue the following directions to ensure that investigation reports reach the
trial Court within the stipulated time, leaving no stone unturned to uphold the
integrity of the criminal justice system.
I. The Investigating Officers, Prosecutors,
District and Sessions Judges, Area Magistrates, Criminal Justice Coordination
Committees and Jail Superintendents shall strictly adhere to the principles
enunciated in the case of Hakeem Mumtaz supra, as mandated by Articles 189 and
190 of the Constitution and directions issued hereinabove, without further failure.
II. The instructions issued by the Director
General of the Directorate of District Judiciary of this Court, pursuant to the
honorable authority’s sanction, as per Letter No. 11125/DDJ/MNT dated
26.07.2021, must be strictly observed to ensure the timely submission of
investigation reports. These instructions encompass comprehensive guidelines
for District and Sessions Judges, Judicial Magistrates, and Trial Courts to
uphold justice and address delays in submitting investigation reports. The
Director General of District Judiciary shall recirculate these instructions at
the earliest for their compliance.
III. The Secretary Public Prosecution
Department, Government of Punjab and the Prosecutor General Punjab shall
promptly address the issue. They shall also submit a report via the Deputy
Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for review in Chambers. The Secretary Public
Prosecution Department, Government of Punjab, shall also address the inefficacy
and poor performance of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Inspectorate,
ensuring that The Inspectorate Act is implemented in its full letter and spirit
for effective internal accountability of delinquents.
IV. Should the Investigating Officer fail to
submit an investigation report within the stipulated timeframe, the concerned
prosecutor shall notify the relevant Superintendent of Police (Investigation)
to initiate legal proceedings against the delinquent. The matter shall also be
reported to the Area Magistrate, who is overall incharge of the investigation,
for further action against the negligent Investigating Officer.
V. The Provincial Police Officer (PPO),
Punjab, shall ensure the timely submission of the investigation reports in
strict compliance of Section 173 of the Code. Each Divisional Superintendent of
Police (Investigation) shall supervise the timely submission of investigation
reports and all negligent Investigating Officers shall be subjected to strict
legal proceedings. In case of supervisory lapses, the concerned Superintendent
of Police (Investigation) shall be held accountable.
VI. Criminal Justice Coordination Committees
throughout the province shall prioritize the issue of timely submission of
investigation reports in every meeting, ensuring that necessary actions are
taken without delay. The CJCC carries a significant statutory duty to monitor
the overall working of criminal justice system and any slackness on part of any
of the stakeholders should not go unnoticed.
VII. Every
Superintendent of Prison, as a member of the CJCC, shall present a report regarding
the prisoners incarcerated without submission of the investigation reports to
the trial Courts, ensuring that no one is detained without a timely charge
sheet submission. The Inspector General (Prisons), Punjab, shall address this