Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 5157 2025 SLD 5157 = 2025 PCRLJ 1197
Sindh High Court, Larkana Bench
Constitutions Petition No. D-156 of 2025, decided on 19th March, 2025.
Before Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Muhammad Saleem Jessar, JJ
Habibullah G. Ghouri along with Petitioners. Liaquat Ali Shar, A.A.G along with DSP Sirajuddin Lashari, RRF/CMU Base Hyderabad, SIP Zulfiqar Mugheri, on behalf of SSP Kamber Shahdadkot and Insp. Azhar Hussain Memon, SHO P.S. Ghaibidero.

MUMTAZ ALI and 2 others---Petitioners

VERSUS

SHO PS GHAIBI DERO, DISTRICT KAMBER-SHAHDADKOT and 4 others---Respondents

Law: Governor-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 173,561A,342

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10A

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,337H(2),148,149

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 173 & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Constitutional petition---Fair trial--Subsequent investigation---Petitioners, accused of triple murder, claimed that they were falsely implicated due to political vendetta by a local MPA---Despite a subsequent police investigation by DSP, that exonerated them and identified other suspects, the police had not filed a supplementary report with the Trial Court--Petitioners requested the Court to compel the police to submit the exonerating supplementary report with the Trial Court---Held, that reinvestigation should be reserved for cases where fairness and impartiality demand it, and should not be ordered routinely after challan submission without valid justification--Reinvestigation could not be used to protect influential individuals---Trial Court could address any investigative defects and accused persons benefit from any technical flaws, ensuring a fair trial under Art.10-A of the Constitution--Indiscriminate reinvestigation would lead to endless delays and undermine criminal justice---In the present case, cognizance had already been taken and at present stage, the submission of the report, exonerating some of the accused in the subject crime, was to be looked into by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage and interference by High Court in that regard was uncalled for---Trial Court had already initiated trial proceedings, and ordering the submission of a report at this stage was unnecessary---Petitioners retained the right to present the supplementary report as evidence during their defence, specifically when their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C were recorded and by examining the Investigating Officer---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.Hakim Mumtaz Ahmed v. The State PLD 2002 SC 590; Muhammad Akbar v. The State 1972 SCMR 335; Qari Muhammad Rafique v. Additional Inspector General of Police (Inv.), Punjab and others 2014 SCMR 1499 ; Muhammad Ashfaq v. Amir Zaman and others 2004 SCMR 1924 and Raja Khursheed Ahmed v. Muhammad Bilal 2014 SCMR 474 rel.Date of hearing: 19th March,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register