| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 505 2015 SLD 505 2015 PLD 213 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 622 and 691 of 2014, decided on 5th May, 2014. DATE of hearing: 17th April, 2014
AHMED ALI M. SHAIKH AND SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JJ
Qurban Ali Malano and Abdul Qadir Helepota for Petitioiner. Ghulam Murtaza Korai for
Respondent. Rasheed A. Rizvi for
Respondent. Iqbal Awan, D.P.D. for the State
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 622 and 691 of 2014, decided on 5th May, 2014. DATE of hearing: 17th April, 2014
AHMED ALI M. SHAIKH AND SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JJ
Qurban Ali Malano and Abdul Qadir Helepota for Petitioiner. Ghulam Murtaza Korai for
Respondent. Rasheed A. Rizvi for
Respondent. Iqbal Awan, D.P.D. for the State
Rao MUHAMMAD SHAKIR through Attorney
VS
PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Government of Sindh and 6 others
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 156
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 156---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Re-investigation of case---Principle---Submission of challan---Petitioners were accused in different criminal cases and sought re-investigations of cases after submission of challans in Trial Court---Plea raised by petitioners was that Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) had influenced Investigating officers against them---Validity---Police Investigating officer was not debarred from reinvestigating and submitting fresh report in supersession of his earlier one either on his own initiative or on direction of superior police officials---Challan had already been submitted and thereafter in supersession of charge sheet, successive investigation could not be carried out under the orders of High Court---Investigation had already been completed and it was not found unsatisfactory or it was not alleged that final report under S.173 Cr.P.C. was based on false evidence during investigation due to behaviour of officials concerned, who were allegedly under the influence of SSP---Petitioners did not show any instance of availability of better evidence, therefore, it could not be said that police officers being subordinate to SSP were in his influence, who had submitted charge sheet in arbitrary and capricious manner---Petitioners did not mention that additional facts and additional circumstances would improve investigation in a better manner and would culminate on innocence of accused persons---Petition was dismissed in circumstances. Bahadur Khan's case 2006 SCMR 373; Muhammad Nasir Cheema v. Mazhar Javed PLD 2007 SC 31; Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State 2012 SCMR 428 and Muhammad Yousuf v. The State 2000 SCMR 453 ref. PLD 2010 SC 1109; Ghulam Sarwar Zardari v. Piyar Ali alias Piyaro 2010 SCMR 624; Atta Muhammad v. Inspector General of Police PLD 1965 W.P.Lah. 735; Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmed Khan and others PLD 1974 SC 151; M.S. v. Saifullah Khan Niazi 1982 SCMR 17; Shehnaz Begum v. Hon'ble Judge of High Court Sindh and Balochistan PLD 1971 SC 677 and Wali Muhammad v.Haq Nawaz PLD 1971 SC 717 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492