Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 384 2026 SLD 384 = 2026 MLD 182
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. 07 of 2025, decided on 4th March, 2025.
Presented By: Before Jan Ali Junejo, J
Raj Ali Wahid Kunwar for Applicants. Mumtaz Ali Shah, A.P.G along with P.I. Javed Akhtar, P.S. Peerabad for
Respondent No. 1. Complainant in person.

MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another---Applicants

VERSUS

The STATE and another---Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 265F(7),94,540,510,561A

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10A

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 265-F(7), 94, 540, 510 & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A--Application seeking direction to Forensic DNA and Serology Laboratory for obtaining and matching a DNA profiling was dismissed---Held: It was an undisputed fact that the applicants did not submit such an application before the Investigating Officer during the investigation, nor did they approach the Judicial Magistrate supervising the investigation---Failure to raise such request at the proper procedural stage rendered the present application legally untenable--Record reflected that prosecution evidence had already concluded, statements of the accused under S.342, Cr.P.C., hadbeen recorded and the defense was now leading its evidence---Defense had a fair opportunity to challenge the DNA report through cross-examination but failed to do so---At this advanced stage, the request for further forensic examination was merely an attempt to reopen the investigation, which was impermissible under the law---Section 265-F(7),Cr.P.C., did not empower the Court to order a fresh investigation or conduct additional forensic testing---Applicants' request for DNA profiling effectively sought to revive an aspect of the investigation, which fell outside the scope of said provision---Trial Court rightly held that what was not permissible directly could not be done indirectly---While exercising revisional jurisdiction, High Court must determine whether the trial Court committed a jurisdictional error or a manifest illegality---Trial Court had correctly applied the law and there was no illegality, irregularity, or miscarriage of justice in the impugned order---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Naeem and another v. The State and others PLD 2019 SC 669 rel. Date of hearing: 4th March, 2025. JUDGMENT JAN ALI JUNEJO, J.---The present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the Applicants (accused), Muhammad Anwar and Husnain, challenging the Order dated 06-01-2025 (here-in-after referred to as the Impugned Order) passed by the Court of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West (here-in-after referred to as the learned Trial…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register