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

Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1197 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mumtaz Ali vs SHO PS ghaibi Dero, District Kamber-Shahdadkot Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1197 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2025 PCrLJ 1197 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2025
Reporter
PCRLJ
Parties
Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1197 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mumtaz Ali vs SHO PS ghaibi Dero, District Kamber-Shahdadkot Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 342; Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

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: 2025 PCrLJ 1197 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mumtaz Ali VS SHO PS ghaibi Dero, District Kamber-Shahdadkot Ss. 173 & 561-a---Constitution of Pakistan, art. 10-a---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Constitutional petition---Fair trial---Subsequent investigation---Petitioners, accused of triple murder, claimed that they were falsely implicated due to political vendetta by a local MPa---Despite a subsequent police investigation by DSP, that exonerated them and identified other suspects, the police had not filed a supplementary report with the Trial Court---Petitioners requested the Court to compel the police to submit the exonerating supplementary report with the Trial Court---Held, that reinvestigation should be reserved for cases where fairness and impartiality demand it, and should not be ordered routinely after challan submission without valid justification---Reinvestigation could not be used to protect influential individuals---Trial Court could address any investigative defects and accused persons benefit from any technical flaws, ensuring a fair trial under art.10-a of the Constitution---Indiscriminate reinvestigation would lead to endless delays and undermine criminal justice---In the present case, cognizance had already been taken and at present stage, the submission of the report, exonerating some of the accused in the subject crime, was to be looked into by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage and interference by High Court in that regard was uncalled for---Trial Court had already initiated trial proceedings, and ordering the submission of a report at this stage was unnecessary---Petitioners retained the right to present the supplementary report as evidence during their defence, specifically when their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C were recorded and by examining the Investigating Officer---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ

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