Constitution Petition No.D-3418 of 2012

 

Date                                                 Order with signature of the Judge

1. For Katcha Peshi.

2. For hearing of Misc. No.33593/2012 (Stay).

----------------------------------------------------------

 
23rd October 2012

 

Mr. Mohammad Faisal Sial, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Hussain Bux Baloch, Special Prosecutor for ANF.

Mr. Gul Zameer, Advocate for Respondents No.4&5.

                             -------------------------

                        Through instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for an order directing the respondent ANF Hyderabad to release his brother Muhammad Yousif Kharal, who according to the petitioner, has been falsely implicated in Crime No.02/2012 for the offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act.

                        Since recovery of 300 kilograms of charras was shown from the brother of petitioner, therefore, we have asked counsel to argue maintainability of the instant petition and on 18.10.2012 counsel after arguing the matter at length sought adjournment to place documentary evidence to prove that the petitioner’s brother is innocent and consequently we adjourned the hearing for today at 11am with the observation that if the petitioner fails to bring documentary evidence to establish innocence of petitioner’s brother cost not less than Rs.25,000/- will be imposed.

                        Today counsel contends that on the day of incident, Investigating Officer of the case was available in Karachi and this fact can be proved from the record of Cell Phone Company and, therefore, Cell Phone Company be directed to place on Court’s file the record of cell phone of the Investigating Officer. On our query, as to how, while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction this Court can appreciate the matter pertaining to recording of evidence and chock the prosecution, counsel has no answer except for pleadings that the cost of Rs.25,000/- may not be imposed and even went to an extent of not pressing this petition. However, tendency of filing frivolous petitions is sharply increasing and to curb such tendency the dismissal of such petition with cost appears to be the only solution.

                        In the circumstances, we dismiss the instant petition however instead of imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- impose cost to the extent of Rs.5,000/-. The cost so directed be deposited with the Nazir of this Court within seven days hereof.

 


JUDGE

 

     JUDGE