ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Constt.Petition.No.D-99 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on M.A.No.2560/2021 (U/A)

02. For orders on office objection “A”

03. For orders on M.A.No.456/2021 (E/A)

04. For hearing of main case.

21.10.2021

                        Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Jokhio, Advocate for petitioner.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH-J; The petitioner who is neither the complainant nor accused of FIR Crime No.72/2020, under section 302,114,148,149 PPC, P.S Waggan, District Kamber-Shahdadkot, has sought for its re-investigation,     under the pretext that his sons being innocent have been involved therein falsely by the complainant party.  

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that              re-investigation of the case could be ordered at any stage, even after submission of the challan, and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon case of Muhammad Yousaf Vs.The State & others(2000 SCMR-453).

                        We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        Legally, the petitioner is having no locus-standi to seek reinvestigation of the case. If the petitioner is having a feeling that his sons being innocent have been involved in said case falsely by the complainant party, then he could advise his sons to prove their innocence legally by joining the trial before the Court, which is seized of the matter. In that situation,                         re-investigation of the case could hardly be justified at the cost of trial.

                        In case of Bahadur Khan Vs. Muhammad Azam and 02 others (2006 SCMR-373), it has been observed by the Honourable Apex Court that;

 “This Court in the case of Riaz Hussain and another v. The State while, 1986 SCMR-1934 seizen of the case relating to criminal appeal has held that the system of reinvestigation in criminal cases is a recent innovation which is always taken up at the instance of influential people and favourable reports obtained which in no way assist the Courts in coming to a correct conclusion, had created more complications to the Court administering the justice, therefore, expressed its disapproval of this system altogether and; successive investigation of the case, as rightly observed by the learned High Court that it only retards the administration of justice of justice instead of providing any assistance thereto”.

                        The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the petitioner was complainant, his son died in police custody on account of torture at the hands of police officials, and challan of the case was not being submitted by the police under section 302 PPC obviously to save their colleagues. In that context, the Honourable Supreme Court ordered for reinvestigation of the case. In the instant case, the petitioner is neither complainant nor accused of the case but has come for reinvestigation of the case obviously to defeat trial to save his sons involved in a murder case.

                        Consequent upon above discussion, the instant constitutional petition fails and is dismissed in limine together with listed applications.

 J U D G E

J U D G E