18. Posting of head of investigation.--(1) The head of investigation in a general Police area other
than the Capital City District or the City District shall be of the rank of
Additional Inspector General of Police.
(2) The head of investigation in a Capital City
District or City District shall not be below the rank of Senior Superintendent
of Police.
(3) The head of investigation in a District shall
not be below the rank of Superintendent of Police and shall be responsible to
his own hierarchy subject to general control of the District Police Officer [;]
[Provided that the
Investigation Wing shall be located within the Police Station and shall be
responsible to its own hierarchy in the District under the general control of
Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station.]
(4) All registered cases shall be investigated by
the investigation staff in the district under the supervision of the head of
investigation:
Provided that the
Government may, by a special or general order, may entrust investigation of
offences under Local and Special Laws as defined in the Pakistan Penal Code and
punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years with or
without any other punishment, to the police station staff.
(5) The District Police Officer shall not
interfere with the process of investigation. The head of investigation shall
however keep the District Police Officer informed of the progress of all cases
which have a bearing on public order. The District Police Officer shall provide
full support to the Head of investigation in the performance of his duties.
(6) Investigation shall not be changed except
after due deliberations and recommendations by a board headed by an officer not
below the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police and two Superintendents of
Police, one being incharge of the investigation of
the concerned District:
Provided that the final
order for the change of investigation shall be passed by head of investigation
in the general police area who shall record reasons for change of such
investigation:
Provided
further that the second change of investigation may only be allowed with the
approval of the Provincial Police Officer, or the Capital City Police Officer,
as the case may be.
[Explanation.--For the
purpose of this Article, "general control" means the relationship
between the authority of the officer-in-charge of Investigation in a District
or a Police Station and the District Police Officer and officer-in-charge of
the Police Station, as the case may be. This relationship requires full support
to the officer-in-charge of Investigation in the performance of his duties and
officer-in-charge of Investigation shall coordinate with the District Police
Officer or officer-in-charge of the police station, as the case may be, and
provide information to him on all matters which have a bearing on watch and
ward and public order functions. Any directions in this regard by the officer
vested with general control shall not explicitly or impliedly interfere in the
conduct of Investigation or transfer of investigation and diversion of manpower
or resources of Investigation to other police functions.]
COMMENTARY
Police Order, 2002 was
promulgated regulating the force of the police and the investigation.
Investigation can only be transferred by adopting the procedure laid down
therein. DIG has no jurisdiction to pass an order for the change of
investigation of a case. The head of investigation in a general police area can
order change of investigation on recommendations of the board of SPs constituted under the police Order. Revision accepted. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (
Statement before Court
not only creates estoppal but also deprives
respondent/official of authority to pass order in question. Order in question,
ordering re-investigation of case or conduct of investigation of the said
statement of Police Official before Court was unlawful being militating against
order passed by High Court. PLJ 2004
Investigation
by the investigating staff. Deliberate lapse on his part.
All registered cases shall be investigated by the investigating staff in the
district under the supervision of the head of investigation. No body to have an
eye over the manner of investigation as has happend
in such case. Until and unless a close look is not kept on the working of the
investigating officers by supervisory officers as is mandated under Police
Order, 2002, fruitful and requisite results of the investigations (i.e. fair
and impartial) cannot be achieved. PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (
Provision
of Art.
18(6) of Police Order 2002, limits number of transfer of investigation only to
providing therein procedure for second transfer, thus, transfer of
investigation for the fifth time was not warranted especially when challan was submitted before Court. Order of
re-investigation of case after taking cognizance of challan
by trial Court amounted to act of removing of file from cause
list of Court and thus, interrupting judicial process of law. Order of re-investigation of case by respondent being violative of Art. 18(6) of Police Order, 2002, as
also contrary to commitment by Police Official before High Court, after putting
in challan before competent Court was declared to be
illegal, unlawful and of no legal effect. PLJ 2004
Prayer
for transfer of investigation. There is hardly any justification for declaring
order of Inspector General of Police to have been passed without any lawful
authority because Police Order, 2002 not debarring police officers from
transferring investigation. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, a
direction is issued to Inspector General of Police to ensure that investigation
of case is completed within next 15 days and report submitted in concerned
Court. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (
The respondent, without
assigning any reason whatsoever, was competent to change investigation for
fourth time, especially when case was investigated on recommendations of
committee constituted u/S. 18. Order of re-investigation for fourth time,
without any reason, without seeking any recommendations from committee so
constituted and without referring any provision of law, indicates that
respondent did not apply his conscious judicial mind. Non-speaking order of
respondent which offends provisions of Punjab Police Order, 2002 cannot be
allowed to be maintained at law being illegal, void and contrary to mandatory
provisions of law. Petition allowed. PLJ 2005
Such
entrustment of investigation being in clear violation of Art. 18 (4) of Police Order,
2002, was patently
illegal. Though such
entrustment might not
have the effect
of vitiating the trial, the same would certainly damage fairness of investigation,
one of the main objects sought to be achieved by Police Order, 2002, as well as
credibility of the officer blatantly violating the law. Such officer would be
exposing himself to disciplinary action and might also incur risk of penalty
under Police Order, 2002. PLJ 2007 Cr.C.
(
District Police Officer
cannot interfere with process of investigation. First change of investigation
can, in areas other than Capital City District, be ordered only by Additional
Inspector General of Police (Investigation Branch) and that too only after
deliberation and recommendation by a Board headed by a Senior Superintendent of
Police and including two superintendents of police, one being in charge of
investigation in concerned District. Change of investigation can only be
allowed with approval of inspector General of Police. PLJ
2005
Police Officers other
than those mentioned in Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 changing
investigation of criminal cases in the name of `verification' of investigation.
The law is quite settled on the point that where the law requires a thing to be
done in a particular manner then that thing must be done in that manner alone
or not at all. In any case if an investigation by an Investigating Officer is
to be verified by some other officer then such verification must be confined to
verification of the record of investigation and such an exercise cannot be
allowed to be conducted in a manner giving it a colour
of fresh investigation with fresh conclusions. The verifying officer has to
confine himself to the record of investigation already conducted then the
verifying officer can bring such fault to the notice of the Superintendent of
Police (Investigation) of the concerned District who can then initiate the
process contemplated by the provisions of Article 18(6) of the Police Order,
2002 for change of investigation. In some cases an impression is being
entertained among some senior police officers that the provisions of Article
18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 pertain to `vertical' change of investigation
and not to `horizontal' transfer of authorities outside and above the relevant
District and the latter denoting transfer of investigation by officers
performing duties with the relevant District. Such a distinction is not only
innovative but totally artificial and self-created and a distinction motivated
to defeat the very purposes of Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 so as to
perpetuate the mala fides for the removal of which
the said Article had been introduced. All notions regarding such a distinction
are liable to be rejected. PLD 2006 Lah.
609.
Investigating Officer
could only identify the defect in investigation. If he had found any document
fake S.P. Investigation could have activated process give under Article 18(6)
of Police Order, 2002, for first change of investigation. PLD
2006 Lah. 609.
Verify officer could not
have investigated the case himself during process of verification and pass
direction to the local police to submit challan
against the accused, etc. PLD 2006 Lah.
609.
Investigation conducted
by the verifying officer was declared violative of
law and was set aside. PLD 2006 Lah.
509.
Illegal
and unauthorized change of investigation. Grievance of petitioner/accused was that
his case earlier was investigated by S.H.O. Police Station concerned
who, after completion of investigation, recorded finding of his innocence, but
on telephonic message from D.P.O., investigation was entrusted to D.S.P. in the
garb of verification and D.S.P. started re-investigation. D.P.O. had no
jurisdiction either to change investigation or to have the case re-investigated
in the garb of supervising investigation in terms of Art. 18
of the Police Order, 2002. Entire exercise of D.S.P. concerned in
starting re-investigation of the case already concluded by S.H.O. was not only
without authority, but also in violation of the rules of law. 2006 PCr.LJ 1596.
Instead of changing
investigation in the garb of verification which was colourful
exercise of jurisdiction by D.P.O., if he was not satisfied with the conduct of
investigation he could place the matter before District Investigation Board
seeking change of investigation, if he himself felt so or received any
information from any person, alongwith his note
giving reason for change of investigation. 2006 PCr.LJ 1596.
D.P.O. could also refer
matter to Additional Inspector General Police as provided under Art. 18 of
Police Order, 2002, but in no circumstances D.P.O. could either change
investigation directly or in the garb of verification/supervision of
investigation by any other person already conducted by competent authority. 2006 PCr.LJ 1596.
Cancellation report was
prepared on verbal direction of S.S.P. (Investigation), which was not brought
to the notice of the Magistrate. Magistrate passed impugned order without
applying his judicial mind which was not at all sustainable in law. Whole
exercise, leading to preparation of cancellation report, appeared to be manoeuvres by accused persons involved in F.I.R. in
collusion with the police. Investigation conducted with the case and
preparation of impugned police
report, were declared to be violative of law and
settled principles of superior Courts. Provisions of Police Order, 2002 had
also been violated, in the case. Impugned order passed by Judicial Magistrate,
was declared to have been passed without lawful authority and having no legal
effect. 2006 PCr.LJ 1639.