| 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.
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…