ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Constt: Pett: No:     S- 2237 of 2010.

Date                          Order with signature of judge.

For Katcha Peshi.

17.1.2011.

Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Abro, advocate alongwith the petitioner.

                        Mr. Sarfraz Khan Jatoi, advocate   for the respondents.

                        Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, State Counsel.

========

                         Through this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent No.2  in terms of his order dated 16.11.2010  constituted  a  Joint Investigation Team  comprising of following persons namely Sultan Ahmed Chandio, Inspector/SPO Shahdadkot, Abdul Wahid Buriro, Inspector/SPO Kamber, Khan Mohammad Tunio, Inspector/SPO Nasirabad, Fida Hussain  Gopang, Inspector/SIO Kamber and SIP Mulazim Hussain Abbasi, SHO P.S Kamber, to reinvestigate into the crime No.246/2010 U/S 302, 34 PPC of P.S Kamber Shahdadkot. 

                        The grievance of the petitioner is essentially that two inspectors  namely Mr. Abdul Wahid Buriro and Mr. Khan Mohammad Tunio, who are the members of the Joint Investigation Team  should not be part of such team inasmuch that prior in time these two  officers investigated  into the above crime No.246/2010 gave report adverse  to the interest of the petitioner.

                        It is a matter of record that the above  Join Investigation Team has been constituted  in terms of the directions of RPO Sukkur Region vide  his order  No.SO/1187-1207 dated 14.10.2010 & DIGP Larkana Zone’s letter No.SO/21094-106 dated 01.11.2010  therefore,  it goes without saying that  after  looking into the  gravity of the matter,  as reported in the present petition, such team of  experienced  police officials has been constituted  which team would only re-investigate the matter and would submit its report for consideration  by the learned 2^nd Judicial Magistrate, Kamber.   In my opinion, it is premature  to  thwart  the proceedings by passing any order.

                        At this stage Mr.Sarfraz Khan Jatoi, learned advocate  for the accused No.2  says that indeed report  as contemplated in terms of the order dated 16.11.2010  by Joint Investigation  Team   has already been submitted.

                        I am afraid  to state that  such has not been done inasmuch as  that there is no such report  of the Joint Investigation Team available on record  which is yet  to be reinvestigated by the join investigation team and to be submitted before the 2^nd Judicial Magistrate, Kamber.   In support of his contention, learned counsel for the accused No.2 has relied upon  an order dated 13.12.2010  passed by this Court in C.P No.S-2269/2010,  which reads as under:

                        “The S.P Investigation, Mr.Aijaz Ahmed Tareen, states that the case pertaining to Crime No.117/2010 of P.S Mahi Makol was investigated and the same has stood disposed of under false class ‘B’  and such  report bearing No.46/2010 dated 26.11.2010  has been submitted before the concerned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate.  The matter now depends  on the order of the concerned Magistrate.  The petitioner will be at liberty to seek remedy if any available under the law on the basis of such order.”

                        To my understanding even in the case, it has been clearly mentioned  that the report was submitted and thereafter  it was further recorded    that the matter now depends on the order of the concerned Magistrate.   Similar is the position in the case in hand that the Joint Investigation Team has yet to reinvestigations which were  mentioned by the learned counsel for the accused No.2, suffice it to state were of the date prior to 16.11.2010 on which date the present Joint Investigation Team was constituted to reinvestigate into the matter.  Therefore, the assertion of the learned counsel that report has been submitted by  the Joint Investigation Team is without substance.

                        Coming back to the constitution of the Joint Investigation Team, it may be observed that the principle is that the larger contains the smaller and not otherwise.  Even if it is presumed that the two officers, who according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, can not investigate into the matter afresh would be taken care of by other three investigation officers and that the report would further be scrutinized and looked into by the Judicial Magistrate concerned.  Therefore, I do not find  any merits in the present petition and dismiss the same as such.

JUDGE