LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that reinvestigation, further investigation or transfer of investigation is permissible even after submission of challan or for that matter framing of charge and till the time the trial is concluded.

       “However, this, at the same time, does not mean that change of investigation or further investigation can be ordered as par for the course,” Justice Muhammad Shan Gul writes in a 29-page judgement on a petition challenging an order of the inspector general of police, Punjab, recommending third investigation in a case of road accident.

       The judge states that there are certain postulates that have to be met before an order for further investigation or reinvestigation or transfer thereof can be passed. He says such an order may be passed if some new event, evidence or incident is discovered warranting reinvestigation or further investigation.

       The judge remarks that the first investigation may be utterly unsatisfactory for many reasons. It may be due to non-availability of the evidence, or the successful induction of false evidence during the investigation or the reason may be, the corrupt behaviour of the police officers concerned, he adds.

       Court issues detailed verdict on plea challenging third probe recommended by IGP

       As per the FIR of the incident, the son of the complainant while riding his motorcycle and travelling to Thokar Niaz Beg was recklessly hit from behind by a car which dragged him on the road and then fled. The occurrence stood captured by the CCTV cameras.

       As per the initial investigation by retrieving video recording from the CCTV cameras of Punjab Safe City Authority, the car was owned by Major Shahzad Ahsan Kahoot, who was found to be present on border duty at the relevant time and, therefore, the police conveniently implicated his driver namely Abid Hussain, the petitioner before the LHC, as the prime suspect.

       The review board of the police department twice changed the investigation on the application of the complainant being unsatisfied with the conduct of investigating officers as he claimed police were trying to protect the alleged actual culprit namely Umar Azad Kahoot.

       The complainant relied on the CCTV footage, call data record (CDR) and the presence of Kahoot within the precincts of the place of occurrence at the relevant time and, therefore, sought change of investigation for the third time.

       Consequently, the IGP ordered a third investigation in the case on the recommendation of the review board.

       The petitioner assailed the order on the ground that since challan had been submitted and charge had been framed in the matter against him, the impugned order could not have been passed.

       Dismissing the petition, Justice Gul questions the purpose of the petition as he challenged an order where if the complainant’s version is accepted, the petitioner gets away scot-free and does not have to face the trial.

       “Why should he challenge such an order is only reflective of the presence of ulterior motive in the matter. His approach to this court in such circumstances is indeed questionable and makes his locus standi somewhat suspect,” the judge concludes.

       Published in Dawn, July 15th, 2021