State vs Muhammad Altaf Khan Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1943 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

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

State VS Muhammad Altaf Khan Ss. 467, 468, 471, 409 & 109---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),Ss. 417 & 417(2a)---Forgery of valuable security, a will, or other documents of similar importance, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, criminal breach of trust by a public servant, banker, merchant, or agent, abetment, criminal misconduct---Reappraisal of evidence---appeal against acquittal filed by State---High Court dismissing the appeal against acquittal---Held: Record unequivocally demonstrated that although the challan listed 57 prosecution witnesses, a significant number had since passed away, including the complainant, as confirmed by the reports of the serving constables; the evidence of several prosecution witnesses had been formally closed, while others remained untraceable at their given addresses---Catastrophic earthquake of October 08, 2005, further compounded those difficulties by causing the complete destruction of the case record, with no recovery memo. documentation available---Witnesses who might have corroborated the recovery memos had also died---Under such exceptional circumstances, even a full-fledged trial would be unlikely to result in conviction---Legislature has vested the Courts with the authority under S.265-K,Cr.P.C., to ensure that the legal process is not abused, the sanctity of the criminal justice system is preserved and individuals are shielded from unwarranted, vexatious and frivolous prosecutions, while also safeguarding the invaluable time and resources of the Court---Once an accused has been tried for an offence and ultimately acquitted, he cannot be retried for the same offence,such an action flagrantly violates the doctrine of autrefois acquit enshrined within the criminal justice system---Said principle is grounded in the fundamental right against double jeopardy, ensuring that no individual shall be subjected to repeated prosecution for the same offence (vexed twice) thereby upholding the integrity of judicial proceedings and preventing the abuse of legal process---Underlying rationale is to protect individual from the interminable ordeal of litigation, unwarranted harassment and the oppressive mechanism of the State, ensuring that the finality of judicial determinations is respected and preserved---High Court rightly delivered the impugned judgment maintaining the acquittal order passed in favor of accused-respondent, which findings did not warrant any interference---Moreover, the advocate General had not established any question of public importance justifying the grant of leave---Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

State vs Muhammad Altaf Khan Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1943 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ