PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1611 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case JAVAID KHAN vs State S — 2024 YLR 1611 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Citation
2024 YLR 1611 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Court
Peshawar High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
YLR
Parties
Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1611 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case JAVAID KHAN vs State S
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 11; S. 342

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1611 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case JAVAID KHAN VS State S. 11(b)---Police Order (22 of 2002), art. 18---Police Rules, 1934, R.25.2(3)---Possession of narcotic---appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Complainant as Investigating Officer---Scope---accused was charged for having in his possession 500 grams ICE---In the present case, the complainant had acted as a complainant, as a witness as well as an Investigating Officer---Under the law a complainant and an accused person were considered to be two opponents/ rivals, as such, they were contesting parties, supporting their respective pleas/ claims, whereas, the role of an Investigating Officer was to unearth the truth---Investigating Officer could not be expected to be a party in the case and that was what the relevant law on the subject spoke---Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934, as well as art. 18 of Police Orders, 2002, mandated that an Investigating Officer was duty bound to dig-out the truth and actual facts of the case and he should not be guilty of a partisan approach---If the said yardstick was applied to the case of the accused then it was an admitted fact floating on the surface of the record that the complainant by acting as an Investigating Officer could not be expected to be fair and transparent especially when the accused in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C. had alleged a specific plea of mala fide involvement of the Levy Officials, in particular the complainant of the subject event---Record showed that the investigation had been carried out by an Official, who was below the rank of Sub-Inspector---Therefore, the impugned conviction and sentence was not maintainable in the eyes of law---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English