JAVID-UR-REHMAN and another vs THE STATE
This petition arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning allegations by the petitioners that the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) concocted a false case against them and six other persons to misappropriate a large sum of money. The core legal question involved whether the petitioners' allegations of a false case and requests for re-investigation warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the plea regarding the misappropriation of money was not raised in earlier applications before the High Court and trial Court, and noted that the trial had already commenced and was making progress. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition on merits without interference, directing the trial Court to expedite the proceedings within six weeks and requiring the defence counsel to fully cooperate with the trial court.
- Can a petition seeking re-investigation be entertained when the trial has already commenced and is progressing?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with ongoing trial proceedings based on pleas not raised before the lower courts?
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 3- 4-2009 passed by Peshawar High Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that ANF, in order to deprive the petitioners and six other persons from an amount of Rs,75,00,000, detail of which has been mentioned in the application, submitted to various authorities including the trial Court (copy of which is available on record), has allegedly concocted a false case against them. They had been submitting applications to various authorities for conducting investigation but no one has given them response. It is their case that Secretary, Narcotics Division was also approached for re- investigation of the case but no action has been taken.
3. Learned Special Prosecutor-General denied the allegations and contended that plea has been raised by the petitioners and others to save themselves from accusation of heinous crime of possessing a huge quantity of heroin.
4. It is to be noted that in the application before the High Court and trial Court, no such plea was raised by the petitioner as it is evident from, the contents of the application. When we inquired from learned counsel for the petitioner he failed to satisfy us in this behalf. Be that as it may, let Secretary ANF on his own, without being prejudiced from the court proceedings, look into the matter according to law.
5. It is to be noted that on one time i,e, 1st June, 2009, although the prosecution witnesses were present but learned counsel did not appear for recording of their evidence, as it is evident from the order sheet maintained by the trial Court, which has been produced for our perusal.
6. Be that as it may, since trial has commenced and progress is being made in the case therefore, without dilating upon the merits of the case we dismiss this petition with direction to the trial Court to expedite the case within a period of six weeks. Learned defence counsel, however, is required to co-operate with the court so the case is disposed of expeditiously.
Cited by 5 cases
- MUHAMMAD MOOSA Versus State 2019 PCrLJ 1164
- MUHAMMAD MOOSA Versus State 2019 PCrLJN 15
- FAISAL JAFFARI vs The STATE 2019 MLD 1436
- IHSAN AHMED Versus State 2018 YLRN 77
- AZEEM SARWAR vs The STATE 2015 P Cr. L J 355