156. Investigation into cognizable case.

--(1) Any officer-in-charge of a police station may

without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having
jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into
or try under the provisions of Chapter XV relating to the place of inquiry or trial.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on
the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to
investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-
mentioned.

[(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (2) or (3), no police-officer shall
investigate an offence under Section 497 or Section 498 of the Pakistan Penal Code, except upon
a complaint made by the husband of the woman, or, in his absence, by some person who had the
care of such woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed.]

COMMENTARY

1. Scope and extent. Remedies provided u/S. 156(3), Cr.P.C. are purposive in nature and are
quick, convenient and alternative within the terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution. PLD 1999
Lah. 417. Magistrate receiving a complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offence
committed in his area, is empowered to order investigation of the case. Such an order may
include direction to register a case and investigate the same in accordance with law. The
Magistrate alternatively may record the statement of complainant and proceed within the four
corners of Ss. 202, 203 and 204. PLD 1999 Lah. 417.

2. Investigation. Consists of steps: (i) proceeding to spot; (ii) ascertainment of facts and
circumstances of case; (iii) discovery and arrest of suspected offender; (iv) collection of
evidence. 1999 PCr.LJ 1357. Only an officer-in-charge of police station has jurisdiction to
investigate a cognizable offence. CIA personnels have no power to investigate a cognizable
offence. PLD 1997 S.C. 408. No investigation after cancellation of FIR. 1997 PCr.LJ 56.
Trial not to be vitiated by defective investigation. 1995 PCr.LJ 1543. High Court is not required
to conduct a parallel inquiry as to the conduct and manner of investigation by police. 1998
PCr.LJ 170. Criminal investigation should not be stifled or killed during its infancy. 1999 PCr.LJ
1345. Investigation after submission of charge-sheet. No bar. 2001 PCr.LJ 199. No embargo on
the power of police for carrying out further investigation after submission of challan in the Court.
PLD 2001 Quetta 10. Duty of Investigating Officer is not to investigate the matter in such a
manner as to connect the accused with offence, but to proceed in a way as to bring the truth to
surface to save innocent person from agony of endless investigation and trial. 2003 PCr.LJ 56.
I.O. under obligation to record version of the accused in investigation and receive all evidence to
be produced and then proceed with same fairly, justly and strictly in accordance with law. PLJ
2003 Cr.C. (Lah) 1168. I.O. not bothering to collect statement of accused or recording his
defence version or to visit spot or gather sufficient evidence for ascertaining truth, such
investigation if allowed would bring havoc to the institution. PLJ 2003 Lah 689. Poor
investigation would lead to poor result. I.O. is duty bound to record version of accused. Ex-
officio justice of peace must call for comments of I.O. explaining as to why he had not recorded
version of accused. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lah.) 1571. Poor investigation would create poor results in
an adversarial system and even good laws would become bad when implemented badly. PLJ
2003 Cr.C. Lah. 689.

3. Further investigation. Power of police to re-investigate the case are unlimited and there is no
law precluding the police from re-investigating the same. However, when a report is submitted to
Magistrate or Court u/S. 173, the Magistrate or Court is not expected to blindly follow the
investigation or re-investigation undertaken by the police as the ipsi dixit of police is never
binding on Magistrate or a Court of law. 2003 YLR 701. Case can be re-investigated even after
the submission of challan to the Court. 2002 PCr.LJ 2014. However, it should not be without any
justification. If some important or credible material is collected which is necessary to be placed
before the Court to arrive at a just conclusion then there is no ouster of jurisdiction or any legal
bar on the fresh investigation. 2002 PCr.LJ 1585; 2000 PCr.LJ 645; 1995 PCr.LJ 1514; PLD
1995 Lah 526; PLD 1987 S.C. 13; 1993 PCr.LJ 97. No embargo on the power of the Magistrate
to refer the matter for further inquiry. 1995 PCr.LJ 97. But it will not affect jurisdiction of the
Court. PLD 1983 S.C. 103. No embargo on the power of police for carrying out further
investigation after submission of challan. PLD 2001 Quetta 10.

4. Police has statutory right to investigate. Police under this section has a statutory right to
investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any permission
from the judicial authorities and such statutory right cannot be interfered with by judiciary. 2000
PCr.LJ 43.

Incharge of investigation has statutory right to investigate the circumstance of an alleged

cognizable offence without requiring any permission from the judicial authority and such
statutory right cannot be interfered with by Judiciary. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 502.

Criminal proceedings cannot take place in presence of pendency of civil suit. Police statutory
right to investigate. Validity. No proceedings of a police officer in any case shall at any stage be
called in-question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered
u/S. 156 of Cr.P.C. to investigate. PLJ 2008 Lahore 237.

5. Irregular investigation. ASI proceeding to the spot and investigated without authorization from
SHO-Irregular. 1972 PCr.LJ 400. Irregularity in the investigation in violation of S. 156 may not
vitiate the trial if no serious prejudice is caused to the accused. PLD 2002 Lah 200.

6. Transfer of investigation. Authority if convinced after going through the record that either the
Investigating Officer is inefficient or incapable or as connived with one of the parties for any
reason, may transfer the investigation thereof in writing. 1999 PCr.LJ 163.

7. Power of High Court and of Sessions Judges to interfere. High Court has no power to interfere
with the police investigation and assume the role of investigator. Conduct and manner of
investigation is not to be scrutinized under constitutional jurisdiction which might amount to
interference in police investigation as the same cannot be substituted by the Court. PLD 2003
Kar 209. Sessions and Additional Sessions Judges can transfer investigation and can issue-
directions for registration of case. 2005 MLD 945.

8. Site-plan. Though not substantive piece of evidence but not a piece of waste paper and cannot
be lightly ignored. 2003 PCr.LJ 1778; PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Qta) 1029.

9. Private person. Investigation is a legal duty of the police or other authorized agencies which
cannot be delegated to any private person or body. 2004 YLR 500.

10. Object. Object to collect evidence. 1994 PCr.LJ 744. Receipt and recording of FIR not a
condition to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. 1991 PCr.LJ 2167. Police has got a
statutory right to investigate a cognizable offence, 2000 PCr.LJ 43, and even the submission of
final report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. does not bar further investigation. 1993 PCr.LJ 223, PLD 1994
S.C. 281.

11. Prosecution. Prosecution means judicial determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. It is not the duty of the investigating agency to investigate the matter in such a manner
to connect the accused persons with the offence but it is also the duty of the investigating agency
to bring the truth on the surface to save innocent persons from agony of endless investigation and
trial. 2003 PCr.LJ 56 Lah. D.B; PLD 1990 S.C. 642; PLD 1968 S.C. 121.

12. Police asking for remand. Police asking for physical remand of accused for recovery of
some incriminative material. Magistrate under S. 167 has only two options, either to grant
remand or to decline but has no authority or jurisdiction to discharge the accused of an offence
exclusively triable by Session Court. 2000 PCr.LJ 43; PLJ 2000 Lha. 80; PLJ 1996 Lah 680.

13. Version of accused. Version of accused to be recorded. Failure amounts to frustrate the
constitutional guarantee set out in Art. 10 of the Constitution. 1998 PCr.LJ 216; PLJ 2005 Lah.
1571.

14. Nian (Oath). Law does not enable Investigating Officer to decide the fate of criminal case on
oath or Nian. PLD 1998 Lah 3.

15. Power of High Court. High Court has power of judicial scrutiny. 1999 MLD 2002.

16. Decoy witness. Sending of decoy witness to trap the accused unethical and against the spirit
of Islamic justice. 2000 MLD 357.

17. Sub-section (3) of S. 156. The Magistrate after examining the complainant in private
complaint u/S. 200, Cr.P.C., must thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter XVI of the Code or after receiving private complaint if complaint discloses some
cognizable offence may send it to the police for investigation u/S. 156(3) of Code. However,
after the witness has been examined by him he cannot thereafter refer the matter to the police
u/S. 156(3) of the Code. 2004 PCr.LJ 304.
18. Re-investigation. System of re-investigation and successive investigations disapproved by
Supreme Court as it always creates complications in the way of administration of Justice. 2006
SCMR 373.

19. Use of sniffer dogs in investigation. Where the culprits are not known, Investigating Officer
has to take start on the basis of presumptions and he has no other choice but to include suspects
in the investigation. If a sniffer dog is used in a blind crime and the dog points out a particular
house, it does not mean that each and every person or a person chosen by complainant residing in
that house, is the actual culprit. When the sniffer dog points out a house its duty ends, but at the
very moment the duty of Investigating Officer starts to further investigate the case and collect
more evidence to inculpate a particular person, and further corroborative evidence is required to
lay hands on a particular person as accused. Moreover, the process of detection by a sniffer dog,
even if sponsored by the complainant, must be supervised and managed by the Investigating
Officer, who must try to ensure compliance of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in letter and spirit, calling upon
two or more inhabitants of the locality to watch the process of search and detection by the sniffer
dog, as far as it is possible. PLD 2008 Pesh. 69.