MUHAMMAD HAMID QURESHI Versus State
This criminal miscellaneous application challenges the dismissal of an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in rejecting the acquittal application without considering the report submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which recommended the release of the applicants due to lack of incriminating material connecting them to the offense beyond an unsubstantiated co-accused statement. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court committed a material illegality by overlooking the Section 169 report and relying solely on the fact that the applicants were named in the FIR. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision after duly considering the police report under Section 169. The key principle laid down is that a trial court must explicitly evaluate and provide specific findings on an Investigating Officer's report submitted under Section 169 when deciding an application for acquittal.
- Whether a trial court is bound to consider a report submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while deciding an application under Section 265-K?
- Does the mere naming of an accused in the First Information Report justify the rejection of an acquittal application when the police report recommends release?
- Is it mandatory for the trial court to give a specific finding on a report filed under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that an application under section 169, Cr.P.C. was made by the Investigating Officer, which application was made with the concurrence of the P.D.S.P. and S.P. Investigation. The application was submitted A before the concerned Magistrate who transmitted the same to the trial Court. Apparently, on the basis of this report, applicants have moved the trial Court under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. but the trial Court had dismissed the application without referring the report made under section 169, Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer states that initially the applicants were named in the F.I.R. No.38 of 2001 lodged with Airport Police Station by the complainant. The Investigating Officer further states that during investigation except the statement of the co-accused Ghulam Muhammad he could not collect any other material, which could connect the applicants with the commission of alleged offence. He submits that, therefore, a report, under section 169, Cr.P.C. was made which was approved by high-ups.
2. It appears that the learned trial Court has overlooked the 169 Cr.P.C. report, while rejecting the application of the applicants made under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. The main ground of the rejection of the application as it appears from the impugned order is that the applicants were named in the F.I.R. The Investigating Officer states that the applicants were named in the F.I.R. on the basis of statement of co-accused Ghulam Muhammad, which statement has not been substantiated by any other material during investigation. In the circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and direct the trial Court to decide the matter in the light of the report made under section 169, Cr.P.C. as this aspect B has been completely overlooked while passing the impugned order. There has to be specific finding on this point, which has not been taken care by the trial Court. The applicants shall make an application to the trial Court, who after hearing the parties shall pass order afresh considering the report of the Investigating Officer filed under section 169, Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer present in Court shall also be present during the hearing of the application by the trial Court.
3. This criminal miscellaneous application along with the listed application stand disposed of in above terms.
4. H.B.T./M-223/K Order accordingly.