Mukhtiar Ahmad vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 1922 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Mukhtiar Ahmad VS State Ss. 32, 45 & 55---Vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest---Investigation---Indemnity---Trial Court convicted the appellant and awarded penalty under clause (c) of S.32 of the Act, 2019, mainly for violation of S.103, Cr.P.C., and not providing an opportunity to the women of dwelling house to observe pardah---Trial Court, after forming a tentative opinion that the appellant had violated the S.27 as well as S.31 of the Act and was liable to punishment under S.32, had issued a show cause notice and on receipt of the reply, convicted and sentenced the appellant---Validity---Record showed that the appellant had never been put to trial nor had any evidence been recorded or he had been confronted with the pieces of evidence as required under S.342, Cr.P.C.---In this case also, the conflict between S.32 of the Act and S.55 of the Act could only be resolved by reading the two Sections together---Indemnity provided under S.55 was, therefore, to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led before the Trial Court but same could not be taken to be absolute immunity---Once the Court comes to a conclusion tentatively and forms an opinion that the offence under S.32 was forthcoming in a case then the course open to such Court would be to direct the appropriate police station to register a separate FIR against the Authorized Officer---Before ordering registration of FIR against an Authorized Officer the Court would have to form a tentative opinion on the basis of material present before it---For said purpose, a show-cause notice should also be served on the Authorized Officer and he should be provided an opportunity of hearing before lodging criminal prosecution against him---After registration of such FIR, investigation of the case would automatically trigger---In accordance with S.45 of the Act read with Chapter 14 Cr.P.C., investigations were to be conducted by another Authorized Officer---At the conclusion of investigation report was to be submitted to the Trial Court in the form of challan like in rest of the cases and then the special Court was supposed to conduct trial in the case having exclusive jurisdiction to try the case under S.23 of the Act---In the present case, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant without any investigation and trial was not sustainable---Resultantly, appeal was partially allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law in the light of above observations.

Mukhtiar Ahmad vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 1922 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD