Sindh High Court (SHC) sought the mechanism for investigation of A-class cases and directed the IGP and Prosecutor General (PG) Sindh in this regard. The court also expressed surprise over the office of Inspector General of Police (IGP) Sindh for having no status of A-class cases. The cases, in which accused persons are unknown or untraceable, are called 'A class' cases.
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar-headed bench also referred to the SHC judgment in the Nasarullah vs. SHO case. The court urged for treatment of such cases in light of that judgment that stated: "It is surfaced that investigation officers in many cases submit report under A class thereby burying the file in dump of files though it is settled principle of law that investigation continues till the crime is unearthed and guilt or innocence is determined by the Court (s) of law, hence in such like matter (s) (reported under 'A' class), the responsibilities of the police do not come to an end by submitting such paper alone nor that of Magistrate concerned who otherwise is ultimate authority and does possess supervisory jurisdiction..."
Justice Panhwar ordered that IGP Sindh shall submit complete report with regard to Nasarullah's case in respect of cells established vis-à-vis absconders and their arrest. In view of Nasarullah's case, all District and Sessions Judges in Sindh were directed to establish IT Cells and were further directed to call every A-class case fortnightly.
The court directed that all District and Sessions Judges shall submit complete details of initiatives which they were directed to take. The reports also be called from the Magistrates concerned on compliance of directives, so specifically issued to them, so as to turn the 'A class reports' into completion of investigation.
The SHC observed that 'no investigation can be said to have been completed unless the culprit thereof is not known/identified, therefore, a report under 'A-Class' would never be an admission of 'completion of investigation' hence no question of legal disposal of a crime/offence arises which legally shall start on presentation of a report under section 173 Cr. PC.
In view of above legal position, Justice Panhwar stated that when a thing (investigation), having been started, was never completed then continuity thereof shall be believed. The attitude of police in believing the submission of a report under A-class as disposal of case was/ is not only illegal but against spirit of investigation per se.
The active consciousness of magistrate (s) in dealing with such reports was also found to be not in accordance with rule of supervisory. Such situation (proposition), surfaced before this Court, in the case of Nasarullah supra was. The court observed that Magistrate is bound to call the investigation officer and victim with regard to progress on the crime in A-class cases fortnightly but here Magistrate not only failed in following the directives but Magistrate and police also failed in appreciating that in such like situation the investigation is deemed to continue till completion thereof which is subject to a report under section 173 Cr. PC. District and Sessions Judge also seems to have not followed the guidelines.
There can be no denial to the fact that 'commission of every crime is self indicative of its doer (criminal)'. If so, which one shall have to admit, would mean that we are having such huge number of criminals around/within us without their identity, court observed.