AMIR KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of the appellant for possessing 4 Kgs of Charas, for which he was sentenced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment. During the appeal, both the appellant's counsel and the Assistant Advocate General conceded that the trial court's judgment could not be sustained. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court. The court directed the trial court to record additional evidence regarding the result of a specific crime report (Crime No. 51 of 2001) and to examine the relevant Investigating Officer. The appellant was granted the right to record a fresh statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and to lead further defense. The court also ordered the appellant's release on bail, noting his prior bail status. Furthermore, the court addressed the wrongful implication of a co-accused, Dr. Khalid Mehmood Soomro, directing the Secretary of the Excise and Taxation Department to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the responsible Excise Inspector for abuse of authority.
- Can an appellate court remand a criminal case for the recording of additional evidence?
- Is an accused entitled to record a fresh statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the remand of a case?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to direct disciplinary action against an investigating officer for abuse of authority during the investigation?
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' On the accusation of possessing 4 Kgs. Charas, the appellant was tried in SC No,197 of 2003 by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge, C.N.S. Nawabshah along with co-accused Dr. Khalid Mehmood. He was awarded sentence of 14 years' R.I. And fine of Rs,30,000. In case of default in payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The appellant was granted benefit admissible under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. However, co-accused namely Dr.,Khalid Mehmood was acquitted by the trial Court as there was no evidence against him.
2. After arguing the case, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.A.-G. Have conceded that the judgment could not be sustained. As such the judgment be set aside and the case of the appellant be remanded.
3. ' Accordingly, the judgment to the extent of conviction awarded to the appellant is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court for recording additional evidence to bring on record the result of Crime No,51 of 2001 Police Station Saeedabad, Hyderabad. The trial Court is directed to examine the Investigating Officer of the said case, or any other officer conversant with the investigation report.
4. ' After recording of evidence of such Police Officer the appellant/ accused shall be entitled to record his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. And to lead further defence, if he so desires as provided under the law.
5. ' Trial Court shall make endeavors to conclude the trial and deliver judgment within a period of six months, if it could not be delivered earlier.
6. ' It has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was cn bail throughout the trial and was taken in custody after delivery of the judgment. As such he may be directed to be released on bail. Leaned A.A.-G. Concedes to this request. Prayer appears to be reasonable. In the circumstances the appellant shall be released on bail subject to furnishing surety before trial Court in the terms of previous bail order.
7. ' It may be clarified, that the acquittal of co-accused Dr. Khalid Mehmood Soomro will remain intact and shall not be affected in any manner by this order of remand.
8. ' During the hearing of this appeal it became crystal clear that one Dr. Khalid Mehmood Soomro was falsely roped in this case by Investigating Officer complainant namely Excise Inspector Altaf Hussain Kalhoro. Although he was acquitted by the trial Court but after conducting the whole trial learned ' A.A.-G. Submits that there was nothing on the record, that such acquittal was impugned anywhere. Thus, it attained finality. Evidently the said innocent citizen had to suffer agony of trial besides damage to his reputation on account of misuse/ abuse of authority by the Excise Inspector Altaf Hussain Kalhoro for which the official concerned is answerable.
9. ' Secretary Excise and Taxation Department shall offer his comments, within a fortnight, as to what action has been taken against the said officer. If the reply is in negative, the reason for delay.
10. However, if no action, so far has been taken against the officer concerned, he shall immediately be placed under suspension and disciplinary proceeding be initiated against him strictly in accordance with the service rules. Such disciplinary proceedings be completed within a period of six months. This Court shall be apprised of the 'progress in the case and final action taken in the matter.
11. ' Let it be made clear, that the above orders/observation shall in no way create bar to initiation of any proceedings under the law or remedy available to the said acquitted accused Dr. Khalid Mehmood.