WALI MUHAMMAD Alias WALIA vs HAQ NAWAZ AND 3 Other

ORDER

1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This appeal by special leave is from two orders of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, passing an interim order and dismissing the appellant's Miscellaneous Application wherein he challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the investiga--tion of the case by a Police Officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Facts pertinent to the decision of this appeal are as follows :- On the complaint of the appellant a case under section 457/ 380/411 of the Pakistan Penal Code was registered against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 at Police Station, Mian Channu, District Multan. While the complaint was being investigated by the Station House Officer, respondent No. 1, Haq Nawaz, moved the High Court under clause 22 of the Letters Patent for transfer of the investigation to the Crime Branch, Lahore on allegations of partiality on the part of the Investigating Officer. The learned Single Judge of the High Court on 30-9-1969 passed the following interim order :-- "Send down a copy of this petition to the I.-G. Police, West Pakistan, asking him whether in face of allegations made in this petition, he would like to transfer the investigation from the local police to the Crimes Branch, West Pakistan. The report should reach this Court within three weeks.

3. Meanwhile it would be appropriate that the investigating officer should not investigate into the matter.

4. To come up on the 24th of October 1969."

5. Having been informed of this order the Inspector-General of Police, West Pakistan intimated to the Deputy Registrar, High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore on 10-10-1969 that the investiga--tion of the case had been transferred to the Crimes Branch, West Pakistan with immediate effect.

6. Evidently the transfer had not been made voluntarily, and was the result of the aforesaid interim order of the High Court.

7. The appellant claimed to be a necessary party and complained that he was neither impleaded in the said proceeding nor was he served with any notice. He, however, came to know of the High Court proceeding before the final order had been passed, and filed a Miscellaneous petition in the High Court contending inter alia, that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the investigation of the case by a competent police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. The High Court finally passed the second impugned order dated 18-10-1969 dismissing both the petitions. The respondent's petition was dismissed as not pressed on the ground that the relief had been already obtained by transfer of the case by the Inspector-General of Police. The appellant's petition was dis--missed as without any substance on the ground that the Inspector-- General of Police had transferred the investigation of the case to an independent agency, like the Crimes Branch, West Pakistan. The learned Judge, however, did not advert to the objection raised by the appellant.

9. The appellant impugned both the orders of the High Court and leave was granted on the following grounds :-

(1) That the Inspector-General of Police has acted in accord--ance with the direction given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.

(2) Clause 22 of the Letters Patent does not warrant inter--ference by the High Court with the investigation of a case by a police officer.

10. The second ground has since been considered and decided by this Court in the case of Shahnaz Begum v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan (PLD 1971 SC 677). In the case under report a learned Single Judge of the said High Court, acting under the impression that he had the necessary power to do so, thought it fit to take action suo motu which resulted in interference with the conduct of an investigation already taken in hand by competent agencies under the law. This Court held that the High Court did not possess the power it had assumed either under clause 22 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of West Pakistan or 9 under any other law or under the Constitution. We must, therefore, hold that the interim order of the High Court dated 30- 9-1969 is without jurisdiction.

11. As regards the first ground it is quite evident that the Inspector-General of Police had acted upon an obvious suggestion contained in the High Court's interim order dated 30-9-1969 which we have just held to be without jurisdiction.

12. In the result we set aside the impugned order dated 30-9-1969. If the Inspector-General of Police did act upon the said order, he is now at liberty to send the case back to the usual investigat--ing agency, if he is so advised. So far as the impugned order dated 28-10-1969 is concerned, in view of what we have said already, no further action is called for. We should, however, like-to observe that the learned Judge should not have kept silent over the legal objection raised by the appellant.

13. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.