| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2214 2026 SLD 2214 = 2026 PCRLJ 790 |
Balochistan High Court
Constitution Petition No. 448 of 2024, decided on 27th October, 2025.
Presented By: Rozi Khan Barrech, C.J. and Sardar Ahmed Haleemi, J
Abdul Malik and others v. The State and others PLD 2006 SC 365 rel. Rehmatullah Miankhail for Petitioner. Anwar Naseem Kasi, Deputy Attorney General along with Umer Saeed, Assistant Director Legal FIA for
Respondent.
Constitution Petition No. 448 of 2024, decided on 27th October, 2025.
Presented By: Rozi Khan Barrech, C.J. and Sardar Ahmed Haleemi, J
Abdul Malik and others v. The State and others PLD 2006 SC 365 rel. Rehmatullah Miankhail for Petitioner. Anwar Naseem Kasi, Deputy Attorney General along with Umer Saeed, Assistant Director Legal FIA for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD MUHSIN---Petitioner
VERSUS
DIRECTOR, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (FIA), QUETTA---Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 160, 403
Law: General Clauses Act (X of 1897)
Section: 26
Law: Constitution of Pakistan
Section: 4, 9, 13, 14
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 160 & 403--- General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 26--- Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 9, 13 & 14--- Constitutional petition--- Notice, quashing of--- Double jeopardy, principle of--- Applicability--- Petitioner was aggrieved of notice under S.160, Cr.P.C., issued by authorities to join inquiry proceedings in the matter which had already been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction---Validity---Notice issued under S.160, Cr.P.C. without disclosing any precise allegation or supporting documentation, only underscores arbitrary and flawed nature of proceedings---Law requires an investigation agency to act on the basis of some credible information or material--- Mere suspicion or reference in a general report cannot be a substitute for legally admissible and probative evidence---In absence of such material, continuation of inquiry served no purpose other than to cause mental anguish, reputational injury and financial hardship to petitioner--- Repeated and unjustified initiation of proceedings against petitioner, particularly in absence of new material, not only infringed upon his fundamental right to fair treatment under the law but also violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 4, 9 & 14 of the Constitution--- Petitioner had already been tried and acquitted on the same set of facts and any subsequent prosecution on identical grounds was barred by Constitutional safeguard under doctrine of double jeopardy--- Initiation of fresh proceedings in absence of any new material evidence had violated the Constitutional fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.13 (a) of the Constitution read with S.403, Cr.P.C. and S.26 of General Clauses Act, 1897--- High Court declared inquiry in question as without lawful authority based on a defective inquiry / investigation and of no legal effect--- High Court quashed notice under S.160, Cr.P.C. issued to petitioner by authorities--- Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Date of hearing: 6th October, 2025. …