Changing FIRs at will: Prosecution office recommends strict action against erring cops
District public prosecutor has written to the DIG that the SSP misconstrued the law
PHOTO: EXPRESS
LAHORE:
In a recent development, the district public prosecutor office cleared misconceptions of the Punjab police and quoted past judgments regarding the powers of a prosecutor that were misconstrued by an Investigation SSP in a criminal case. It also asked the police to take departmental action against the two investigation officials over negligence.
An assistant district public prosecutor wrote a letter to the SSP for taking departmental action against Nawab Town Police Investigation Officer Aurangzeb and DSP Samanabad Circle Shahid Ahmed Khan for deleting Section 302 from an FIR without adopting legal procedure enshrined in the law.
He mentioned the investigators conducted investigation inefficiently and without adopting legal procedures as per the law. Assistant District Public Prosecutor Muhammad Ijaz suggested strict action should be taken against the two officials and departmental action should be initiated against them for not considering the following points.
The first investigating officer did not collect any cogent, confidence inspiring and admissible evidence. He also did not collect any evidence according to the statement of the accused. The accused said he and the deceased were high on drugs and as a result, he died. The investigating officer did not make any effort to conduct medical examination of the accused in order to prove such stance.
The second investigating officer (DSP) added Section 322 of PPC merely on the statement of accused but did not collect any admissible evidence in order to support his investigation/findings.
The investigating officer failed to submit the cancellation report in time which was prepared.
Both of them did not adopt the proper line of inquiry. They also destroyed the evidence which could be obtained while making simple efforts etc.
The two supplementary applications filed by the complainant before the investigating officer or part of the file was registered without adopting legal procedure given under the Police Rules 1934.
The SSP Investigation responded to the letter by quoting some judgments elaborating the powers of the prosecutors. The SSP mentioned the observations made by the Lahore High Court as follows:
“It transpired that the function of the prosecutor is just to pin point the defects in investigation as well as in the report under Section 173 CrPC and to direct the investigating agency to remove the same, rather to assume the job of court to refer for taking departmental action against the investigating officer.”
Later, the district public prosecutor office wrote to DIG Investigation that SSP Investigation has misconstrued the law adding he has not gone through the spirit of referred case law and has opined to the extent of a short note.
Paragraph D of the judgment quoted by the SSP is very much clear which states: “That is why the prosecutor has also been empowered to highlight lapses of the investigation officer in acute cases of negligence and suggest appropriate departmental punitive action to promote sense of responsibility as well as accountability of the investigating officer, if he does not comply with the directions.”
The SSP miserably failed to understand the purport of the above case law.
The prosecutor’s office requested the DIG to ask the SSP to take departmental action against the aforesaid officials.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 18th, 2017.
In a recent development, the district public prosecutor office cleared misconceptions of the Punjab police and quoted past judgments regarding the powers of a prosecutor that were misconstrued by an Investigation SSP in a criminal case. It also asked the police to take departmental action against the two investigation officials over negligence.
An assistant district public prosecutor wrote a letter to the SSP for taking departmental action against Nawab Town Police Investigation Officer Aurangzeb and DSP Samanabad Circle Shahid Ahmed Khan for deleting Section 302 from an FIR without adopting legal procedure enshrined in the law.
He mentioned the investigators conducted investigation inefficiently and without adopting legal procedures as per the law. Assistant District Public Prosecutor Muhammad Ijaz suggested strict action should be taken against the two officials and departmental action should be initiated against them for not considering the following points.
The first investigating officer did not collect any cogent, confidence inspiring and admissible evidence. He also did not collect any evidence according to the statement of the accused. The accused said he and the deceased were high on drugs and as a result, he died. The investigating officer did not make any effort to conduct medical examination of the accused in order to prove such stance.
The second investigating officer (DSP) added Section 322 of PPC merely on the statement of accused but did not collect any admissible evidence in order to support his investigation/findings.
The investigating officer failed to submit the cancellation report in time which was prepared.
Both of them did not adopt the proper line of inquiry. They also destroyed the evidence which could be obtained while making simple efforts etc.
The two supplementary applications filed by the complainant before the investigating officer or part of the file was registered without adopting legal procedure given under the Police Rules 1934.
The SSP Investigation responded to the letter by quoting some judgments elaborating the powers of the prosecutors. The SSP mentioned the observations made by the Lahore High Court as follows:
“It transpired that the function of the prosecutor is just to pin point the defects in investigation as well as in the report under Section 173 CrPC and to direct the investigating agency to remove the same, rather to assume the job of court to refer for taking departmental action against the investigating officer.”
Later, the district public prosecutor office wrote to DIG Investigation that SSP Investigation has misconstrued the law adding he has not gone through the spirit of referred case law and has opined to the extent of a short note.
Paragraph D of the judgment quoted by the SSP is very much clear which states: “That is why the prosecutor has also been empowered to highlight lapses of the investigation officer in acute cases of negligence and suggest appropriate departmental punitive action to promote sense of responsibility as well as accountability of the investigating officer, if he does not comply with the directions.”
The SSP miserably failed to understand the purport of the above case law.
The prosecutor’s office requested the DIG to ask the SSP to take departmental action against the aforesaid officials.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 18th, 2017.