IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR
(Writ Jurisdiction)
Present: Mr. Justice S. M. Attique Shah, CJ. Mr. Justice Syed Arshad Ali.
Mr. Justice Sahibzada Asadullah. Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan. Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din.
Writ Petitions No. 5504-P/2025 and 5560-P of 2025:
Asif Ullah (In WP No.5504-P/2025) Advocate Shabbir Hussain Gigyani (In WP No.5560-P/2025)
(Petitioners)
Versus
Government of KPK and others (In WP No. 5504-P/2025) The D.G Prosecution KPK & others (In WP No.5560-P/2025)
(Respondents)
For the Petitioner(s) M/s. Shabbir Hussain Gigyani and
Barrister Amir Khan Chamkani, M/s. Muhammad Waqar and Farman Ullah Sailab, Advocates
For the state Mr. Shah Faisal Utmankhel, Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Noman-ul-Haq Kakakhel and Niaz Muhammad, Additional Advocate Generals. Mr. Sana Ullah, Additional Attorney General for the Federation along with M/s. Fahad Azhar, Law Officer, Ministry of Human Rights and Ghina-e-Sahar Research Officer/ representative of Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan.
For the respondent(s) M/s. Mian Aziz Ahmad, Director
(Administration), Ibad-ud-Rehman, Director (Monitoring), Siffat Ullah, Director (Legal), Zeeshan Ullah,
Deputy Director (Monitoring), Prosecution Department, Muhammad Alam Khan Shinwari, Addl. IG (Investigation), Humayun Masood Sandhu, DIG (Legal & Litigation), Muhammad Asif, AIG (Legal) and Turab Khan, SP (Investigation), CPO, Peshawar.
M/S. Zulfiqar Hameed, Inspector General, KPK, Javed Qamar, Additional IG, CTD, M/S. Zafar Abbas Mirza Anwar Khan, Senior Law Officer, CTD, Mr. Jehanzeb Khan Shinwari, DG, KP Judicial Academy.
Mr. Muhammad Abid Majeed, Additional Chief Secretary, Home & Tribal Affairs Department, Mr. Akhtar Saeed Turk, Secretary Law, Mr. Amir Tareen Sultan, Secretary Finance, Mr. Abdul Hameed, Deputy Secretary (Litigation), Mr. Khalid Iqbal, Special Secretary, Finance Department, Ms. Robin Haider Bukhari, Director General, Prosecution, Mr. Manzoor Niaz, Legal Advisor to IGP, Mr. Amir Khan, Section Officer Dev-II, Finance Department.
On Court Notice: M/s. Muhammad Nisar Khan, Tafseel Khan Afridi, Muhammad Tariq Yousafzai, Sahibzada Riazat-ul-Haq, Abdul Saboor Khan (Mansehra), Junaid Anwar Khan (Mansehra), Syed Akbar Ali Shah, Khizar Hayat Khazana, Saif Ullah Khan Mohmand, Muhammad Sareer Khan, Astaghfirullah, Badi-uz-Zaman (Buner), Ahmad Farooq Khattak (Karak), Tayyab Zaman, Atif Jadoon, Sahibzada Sikandar, Sarfaraz Khan
(Chakdara), Mian Faheem Akbar, Raza Ullah (Mingora), Dr. Syed Akhtar Ali Shah, Ijaz Khan, Mian Arshad Jan, Imtiaz Khan, Yousaf Shah Mohmand, Saeed Khan, Sareer Khan, Farhat Ullah Khan, Amin-ur-Rehman, Khurram Ghias Khan, Advocates and Mian Naseeb Jan, Retired SP, Syed Asghar Ali Shah (R) District & Session Judge.
Research Assistance: Riaz Aslam Daavi, SRO, PHCP
Date of Hearing: 11.09.2025, 09.10.2025 & 06.11.2025
Contents
PREFACE 4
INTRODUCTION OF WRIT PETITIONS 5
ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES 6
REPORTS AND SUGGESTIONS 24
QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION 37
ISSUE OF MAINTAINABILITY 40
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE ROLE OF ITS CONSTITUENT COMPONENTS 44
1. Duties of the Public, the Parties and Witnesses 46
2. Police Functions and Investigation: An Overview 49
3. Prevention of crime and role of law enforcement agencies 52
4. Reporting of cases at Hospitals 53
5. Arrest of accused and article 10 and 14(2) of the constitution of Pakistan. 54
6. Investigation and its requirement 60
7. Defective and Poor Investigation 67
8. Case Property, Its Disposal and Misuse 69
9. Significance of Medical Professionals in Justice Delivery 71
10. Forensic Science and Evidentiary Value of Experts 75
11. Role and Responsibilities of the Prosecution 77
12. Role of Legal Practitioners in the Criminal Justice System 81
13. Responsibilities of the Judiciary in Ensuring Expeditious Justice 88
14. Role and Purpose of Jails and Correctional Institutions 96
15. Probation and parole 97
FINDINGS ON THE QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION 98
GUIDELINES AND DIRECTIVES 117
1. For Police and Investigation 117
2. For Prosecutors 124
3. For Medical Officers 128
4. For Lawyers 129
5. Directives for Courts 131
6. Directions and Recommendations for Respondents 139
J U D G M E N T
***
S. M. Attique Shah, CJ
PREFACE
1. The foremost duty of the State is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against external aggression and internal disorder. Every sovereign State exists to defend its territorial integrity and to secure peace within, so that its constitutional purposes may be fulfilled. Pakistan, with its written Constitution as the supreme law, ensures fundamental rights and structures governance through its Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. To realise these objectives, the State builds and sustains its institutions, and entrusts specialised law enforcement agencies with the grave responsibility of preserving public order and securing peace. The functioning of these law enforcement agencies is regulated by a comprehensive body of criminal laws which forms the backbone of the criminal justice system, ensuring accountability, order, and the rule of law.
2. However, this system designed to uphold the rule of law and deliver justice is beset by structural deficiencies, operational weaknesses, and procedural flaws. Rising crime rates and the widespread perception that the criminal justice apparatus fails to prevent offences, ensure fair investigation, prosecute effectively, or
secure timely convictions, cast serious doubt on its efficacy. It is against this backdrop, and in pursuit of constitutional justice, that the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), seeking enforcement of their fundamental rights and redress of systemic lapses in the criminal justice system that threaten public order and the rule of law.
INTRODUCTION OF WRIT PETITIONS
3. In W.P. No. 5504/2025, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, alleging deep-seated systemic flaws in the criminal justice system of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He asserts that due process, fair trial, and fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 10-A, and 25 are routinely undermined. Styled as public interest litigation, the petition highlights deficiencies in investigation, prosecution, and forensic practices, which, according to the petitioner, have eroded public confidence in the administration of justice. His grievances include performance-based FIRs, fabricated witnesses, lack of scientific investigation, compromised forensic procedures, and inadequate prosecutorial oversight, all allegedly resulting in miscarriages of justice. He seeks judicial declaration against such practices and directions to the Provincial Government for comprehensive reforms to restore integrity and fairness in the criminal justice system
4. In the connected W.P. No. 5560/2025, the petitioner seeks judicial intervention on issues of public importance relating to delays in the criminal justice process. He contends that persistent failure to submit challans within the fourteen-day period prescribed by section 173 of CrPC, has resulted in the unlawful and prolonged detention of under-trial prisoners, infringing their constitutional and statutory rights.
Reliance is placed on the pronouncements of superior courts, including
PLD 2002 SC 580, 2009 SCMR 181, and PLD 2021 SC 795, wherein
delayed submission of challans was held violative of the right to fair trial. The petitioner asserts that despite repeated judicial observations and the guidelines under the National Judicial Policy, non-compliance continues unabated. He, therefore, invites this Court to examine whether such inaction and procedural delay are compatible with Articles 4, 9, and 10-A of the Constitution, and to issue remedial directions to ensure timely administration of justice.
ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES
An opportunity of hearing was afforded to the parties and to all key stakeholders of the Criminal Justice System ("CJS"). The learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents, distinguished members of the Bar, and representatives of the relevant institutions addressed the Court, and their submissions were recorded in the manner that follows.
5. Dr. Akhtar Ali Shah, Advocate, submitted that although a comprehensive legal framework exists, its ineffective implementation remains the central challenge. He emphasized that adjournment culture must be curtailed and reiterated that under section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ("CrPC"), the SHO is duty-bound to register cognizable offences upon receipt of information. He attributed the prevalence of false witnesses to societal reluctance to testify, such as people readily protest but refrain from appearing before courts. He highlighted institutional shortcomings, including weak enforcement of mandatory First Information Report ("FIR") registration and inadequate police training, particularly for investigating officers. He recommended standardized professional training, functional specialization, and structural reforms within the police, with recruitment confined to constable and ASI tiers, allowing promotion up
to inspector general. He proposed that the Forensic Science Laboratory ("FSL") be made independent of police and prosecution, preferably through a dedicated authority akin to the Punjab Forensic Science Authority. He also urged strengthening of the Criminal Justice Coordination Committee ("CJCC") to ensure enforceability of its decisions. He argued that despite judicial pronouncements holding that FIRs do not constitute substantive evidence, they are often treated as conclusive factual accounts, an erroneous perception requiring correction. He contended that refusal to register an FIR may amount to misconduct under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act, 2017 ("Police Act"), the Police Rules, 1934 ("Police Rules"), and the Efficiency and Discipline framework, and may even attract civil liability for deprivation of a legal remedy. In support, he cited PLD 2007 SC 539, PLD 2016 SC 581, PLD 2022 SC 471, and 2021 SCMR 1493. He
further submitted that false or exaggerated complaints may be discouraged through enforcement of sections 182, 211, and 499-502 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC), and through actions for malicious prosecution and defamation. He concluded that the existing statutory framework comprising the CrPC, Police Act, Police Rules, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions And Powers) Act, 2005 ("Prosecution Act"), and principles of medical jurisprudence is adequate; the real deficit lies in implementation, supervision, and institutional resolve. Laws exist but compliance is weak; training exists but quality is lacking; accountability mechanisms exist but are seldom invoked.
6. Mr. Tariq Yousafzai, Advocate, concurred with Dr. Akhtar Ali Shah regarding challenges in implementing the existing legal framework. He submitted that an SHO's refusal to register an FIR constitutes an offence under section 217 PPC, and section 118 of the Police Act. He observed that courts often exercise restraint in initiating proceedings against police officers and rarely invoke sections 182 and
211 PPC. He emphasized that an investigating officer is neither a prosecution witness nor an accused, and including them among prosecution witnesses is unjust. To address these systemic issues, he recommended enacting a separate statute governing the investigation wing to ensure clarity, independence, and accountability in investigative processes.
7. Mr. Yousaf Shah Mohmand, Advocate, argued that ensuring the independence of investigating officers is essential for enabling them to form impartial and honest opinions. He further highlighted the need for proper and continuous training to enhance their professional competence. He also stated that after the promulgation of the Prosecution Act, the role of the Naib Court has become redundant and is no longer necessary.
8. Mr. Ijaz Khan, Advocate, while agreeing with the arguments already presented, stated that the role of the Circle Officer and SP Investigation should be reduced to ensure greater independence for investigating officers. He pointed out that the unavailability of FSL reports on time is one of the main reasons for delays in the submission of challans. He further emphasized that the independent opinion of the investigating officer at the conclusion of an investigation is essential but currently missing in the existing system. He also suggested that a penalty should be imposed for refusing to register an FIR in cases involving cognizable offences.
9. Mr. Nisar Khan, Advocate, submitted that trial courts, while acquitting an accused on the principle of benefit of doubt, often fail to hold the complainant, investigating officer, witnesses, or prosecution accountable. He emphasized that sections 166 and 186, PPC, should be invoked where appropriate to ensure responsibility and uphold the integrity of the judicial process. Referring to PLD 2008 Peshawar 28, he highlighted the elaborated role of the prosecution and recommended
mandatory prior consultation with the prosecution before filing a challan in court. He further advocated for compulsory training of investigating officers and prosecutors in line with applicable laws, superior court precedents, and modern investigative and prosecutorial techniques. To curb perjury and false allegations, he proposed rigorous invocation of section 476, CrPC, by trial courts. In support, he cited PLD 2016 SC 484, 1987 SCMR 1962, 1987 MLD 2121, PLD 1982 SC
291, PLD 1986 SC 6, PLD 1984 SC 44, and 2000 PCrLJ Peshawar
718.
10. Mr. Atif Jadoon, Advocate, submitted that FIRs are often registered by lower-rank personnel with limited understanding of their legal implications. He recommended that senior officers be entrusted with FIR registration to ensure accuracy and minimize errors. He further highlighted the issue of strikes by counsel, noting that such actions violate the Wakalat Nama, and suggested engaging bar associations to devise a constructive and lasting solution. Additionally, he emphasized that the role of the District Public Prosecutor should commence from the very initiation of an FIR, and that a public prosecutor should be available round the clock, similar to the duty magistrate
11. Mr. Imtiaz Khan, Advocate, concurred with earlier submissions and emphasized that the primary focus should be on ensuring the independence of investigating officers to facilitate fair and impartial investigations. He further stressed that circumstantial evidence, often overlooked, must be given due consideration and proper weight during investigation and trial.
12. Mr. Sahibzada Riazat Ul Haq, Advocate, submitted that in certain cases, the complainant, investigating officer, and Malkhana in charge are the same person, undermining the independence and impartiality of investigations. He recommended establishing an
independent Malkhana within the district courts under the supervision of the District and Sessions Judge, where case property should be deposited upon production before the magistrate to ensure transparency and accountability. He emphasized that in narcotics cases, the seizing officer or complainant and the investigating officer must be distinct to preserve fairness and impartiality in the investigative process.
13. Mr. Tafseel Khan Afridi, Advocate, submitted that compliance with section 154, CrPC, is mandatory, and sections 166, 182, and 211, PPC, should be invoked proactively where necessary. He highlighted that failure to submit a challan under section 173, CrPC, within the prescribed time constitutes an offence under section 118, Police Act. He recommended that, during remand under section 167, CrPC, the investigating officer be summoned to report progress to the magistrate. He emphasized that adjournments under section 344, CrPC, should not be granted mechanically, and that magistrates should exercise their suo motu powers under section 190(1)(c) CrPC, where appropriate, to ensure justice and accountability.
14. Mr. Mian Arshad Jan, Advocate, submitted that an independent authority should be established to oversee investigating officers and ensure their professionalism and accountability. He emphasized strengthening the role of magistrates in monitoring investigations, raising qualifications for investigating officers, and providing standardized training to improve investigative quality. He also recommended establishing a Prosecution General (PG) Office in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to enhance prosecutorial oversight. Additionally, he highlighted deficiencies in medical reporting due to inadequate training of medical officers, which adversely affects evidence and leads to acquittals.
15. Mr. Muhammad Alam Khan Shinwari, Additional Inspector General (Investigation), submitted that the police have lost
administrative independence following the 2024 amendments and recommended restoring the autonomy provided under the KP Police Act, 2017, to ensure effective and impartial functioning. He emphasized that the FIR is being treated as decisive evidence, whereas it is intended only as an initial record to initiate investigation. He further highlighted the need to revamp and modernize the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to enhance the quality and credibility of forensic investigations. He explained that separation of operational and investigation branches is currently unfeasible due to resource constraints, as the police are primarily engaged in counter-terrorism operations, leaving the investigation branch dependent on operational resources.
16. Ms. Robin Haider Bukhari, Director General, Prosecution, submitted that the prosecution service, in the past, was neither fully independent nor adequately empowered to effectively discharge its statutory mandate. She apprised the Court that, with the promulgation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) (Amendment) Act, 2025, the prosecution service has now been significantly strengthened and has been vested with enhanced authority to function in accordance with law. She further emphasized that any police officer who disregards, defies, or fails to comply with the lawful advice, directions, or instructions issued by the District Public Prosecutor or the Public Prosecutor shall be deemed to have committed misconduct within the meaning of section 118 of the Police Act, and shall be proceeded against under subsection (2) thereof. The worthy Director General also brought to the attention of the Court that Public Prosecutors posted in various districts are presently deprived of proper and adequate office accommodation, which is indispensable for the smooth and efficient functioning of the prosecution service. She further pointed out that the postings and transfers of prosecutors in BPS-17 and above remain under the administrative control of the Home
Secretary, rather than the Director General, thereby undermining the institutional autonomy of the prosecution department. In addition thereto, the worthy Director General apprised the Court of the manifold difficulties being confronted by the worthy District Public Prosecutors and the worthy Public Prosecutors in the effective discharge of their statutory duties and assigned responsibilities. It was highlighted that the prosecution department is presently suffering from an acute paucity of financial resources and essential logistical support, which has gravely hampered its operational efficiency. In her view, these constraints warrant immediate redress and prompt remedial measures on the part of the Provincial Government, so as to ensure the proper, independent, and effective functioning of the prosecution service, and to meaningfully address, rectify, and eradicate the prevailing shortcomings and systemic weaknesses afflicting the department.
17. Mr. Sana Ullah, Additional Attorney General, concurred with the arguments presented and noted that written comments had already been submitted. Regarding federal involvement, he stated that the matter would be taken up with the federal government, which is expected to play its due role in financing criminal justice reforms. He proposed that if a magistrate or trial court discovers a supplementary or progress-based FIR for the same incident, the case record should be immediately forwarded to the District Police Officer and IGP with a judicial directive to initiate disciplinary action. He recommended establishing a centralized digital FIR registration system across the province and creating a Judicial Investigation Monitoring Cell in every district to ensure timely submission of challans. He suggested amending section 173, CrPC, to prescribe strict timelines for challan submission: fourteen days for offences punishable up to three years, thirty days for offences punishable up to seven years, and sixty days for heinous offences, with mandatory bail if deadlines are not met. He emphasized empowering magistrates to take cognizance and penalize
those responsible for delays. Additionally, he advocated introducing modern technology in court processes, including real-time digital oversight, centralized portals, automated alerts, performance metrics, time-bound investigations, and creation of a specialized investigative cadre within the police.
18. Mr. Naseeb Jan (R) SSP, submitted that the two primary areas requiring reform in the police department are training and promotion. He observed that current training standards are unsatisfactory, with trainees often assigned duties unrelated to legal instruction, such as polio campaigns and security for Muharram processions, affecting the quality of training. He noted that incentives for law instructors, including special pay and instruction allowances, have been discontinued, and that the training process lacks grading or evaluation. Regarding promotions, he stated that they were previously based on competence, integrity, and seniority, but now consider seniority alone. He also recommended reviving community policing to reduce the burden on courts.
19. Mr. Amin ur Rehman, Advocate, suggested that Investigating Officers (IOs) should be law graduates and that the investigation branch should be made completely independent from the operation branch. He further recommended that police duties related to security and protocols should be separated from investigation and operational functions. Similarly, Mr. Farhat Ullah, Advocate stated that the Provincial Public Safety Commission and District Criminal Justice Coordination Committees need to be empowered, as strengthening these bodies would help address major issues within the criminal justice system.
20. Mr. Khurram Ghias Khan, Advocate, submitted that the Bar has become politicized, with excessive focus on political activities rather than the professional duty of assisting the courts. He highlighted that unnecessary strikes and frequent adjournments have rendered the
system inefficient and require immediate practical solutions. He emphasized that members of the Bar must be sensitized to perform their duties in accordance with the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 ("Legal Practitioner Act"), and the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976 ("Legal Practitioner Rules"). He also recommended making the District Public Safety Commissions and Citizens-Police Liaison Committees functional to ensure effective redressal of public grievances against the police.
21. Mr. Zulfiqar Hameed, IGP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, submitted that the autonomy and institutional independence of the police are indispensable prerequisites for its efficient, impartial, and professional functioning. He contended that the recent amendments to the Police Act, particularly sections 9(4), 11, and 17 thereof, have substantially curtailed the administrative authority of the Provincial Police Officer, thereby creating room for undue political interference in police affairs. He observed that Inspectors General of Police in other provinces enjoy comparatively greater autonomy with respect to postings, transfers, and overall administrative control, and asserted that similar independence ought to be ensured for the police leadership in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He further emphasized that authority must necessarily be commensurate with responsibility, and that the restoration of the independence of the Provincial Police Officer is vital for ensuring smooth, transparent, and accountable policing. He pointed out that, under the existing framework, postings and transfers of officers in BPS- 18 and above are vested in the Chief Minister, whereas those below BPS-17 fall under the authority of the Regional Police Officers. The worthy Inspector General also highlighted a serious paucity of financial resources allocated for investigations, coupled with inadequate training facilities, lack of incentives, and an acute shortage of trained investigative officers, all of which constitute major impediments to credible operational, preventive, and investigative functions of the
police force. He further submitted that a significant number of complaints are either false or exaggerated, and that the reluctance of the general public to come forward and provide evidence further undermines the fairness and effectiveness of criminal investigations. He concluded by submitting that the operational, preventive, and investigative capacities of the police force can be substantially strengthened through the provision of adequate financial resources and institutional support.
22. Mr. Muhammad Abid Majeed, Additional Chief Secretary, Home & Tribal Affairs Department, on behalf of the Government, submitted that the Government unequivocally supports comprehensive and far-reaching reforms of the criminal justice system and is fully committed to providing the requisite financial resources necessary for their effective implementation. He assured the Court that adequate funding would be made available to facilitate structural, procedural, and institutional improvements across the system. He proposed that the prevailing practice of filing progress appeals and progress FIRs be discouraged, with a view to promoting efficiency, reducing multiplicity of proceedings, and ensuring finality in litigation. He further highlighted the pervasive societal reluctance of witnesses to come forward and depose in criminal trials, and, in this context, recommended that due and greater weight be accorded to circumstantial evidence, elevating its evidentiary value to a level commensurate with oral or ocular testimony, subject to the settled principles of law. The worthy Additional Chief Secretary also advocated for appropriate regulation of the legal profession in order to curb procedural delays, frivolous and false litigation, and disruptions caused by strikes, which adversely affect the administration of justice. He suggested revisiting and rationalizing the legal significance traditionally attached to the First Information Report (FIR), emphasizing that undue reliance thereon often impedes the fair adjudication of criminal cases. He further
emphasized the frequent and judicious invocation of the provisions relating to probation and parole, as a means to promote rehabilitative justice and to alleviate the substantial fiscal burden imposed upon the State by prolonged incarceration. A key reform proposal advanced by him was the grant of financial and administrative autonomy to the investigative wing of the police, with its structural separation from operational and law-and-order functions, so as to ensure independence, integrity, and objectivity in criminal investigations. Additionally, he informed the Court of the Government's firm commitment to fund and establish a modern, state-of-the-art Forensic Science Laboratory, aimed at strengthening forensic capabilities and enhancing the overall quality and credibility of criminal investigations. He reiterated, in unequivocal terms, that the Provincial Government stands fully committed to supporting comprehensive criminal justice reforms and undertakes to provide all necessary financial and institutional support required for their successful execution.
23. Mr. Amir Tareen Sultan, Secretary Finance, submitted that the Provincial Government is willing to provide financial support for strengthening the criminal justice system, but emphasized that funding alone will not yield results without tangible improvements in performance, efficiency, and outcomes. He placed on record a written report showing substantial financial measures already undertaken for modern forensic infrastructure in the Province. The report indicates that the ADP Scheme titled Acquisition of Land for Construction of Forensic Science Laboratory at Peshawar was originally approved at Rs. 320 million and subsequently revised by the Provincial Development Working Party on 23 June 2023 to Rs. 486.20 million, with the entire sanctioned amount released. For the construction of the Forensic Science Laboratory, a separate ADP Scheme titled Establishment of Forensic Science Laboratory at Peshawar with a total approved cost of Rs. 977 million is reflected in the current Annual
Development Programme, with expenditure already commenced, allocations made for the upcoming financial year, and Rs. 18 million already released. He clarified that the Finance Department's role is limited to releasing funds approved in the ADP, while any enhancement or re-appropriation lies with the concerned Administrative Department and Planning & Development Department. Supporting documents show multiple releases made in previous financial years for land acquisition and preparatory work for the forensic project. These submissions indicate the Government's preparedness to invest in criminal justice institutions, while expecting corresponding structural improvements, accountability, and demonstrable results in return.
24. Mr. Ahmed Farooq Khattak, Advocate, submitted on behalf of the lawyers that investigation officers ("IOs") must independently record every step of the investigation, uncover the truth, and not be bound by the FIR. He emphasized that officers should not shift responsibility to the complainant for producing evidence or nominating accused persons. Additionally, he contended that shoulder-promoted officers being posted as Inspectors or DSPs should be discontinued.
25. Mr. Badi Uz Zaman Khan, Advocate, submitted that competent and honest officers should be appointed as IOs, who must be empowered to act against false, exaggerated, or frivolous allegations without seeking directions from Circle DSPs or SP Investigation. He also recommended regular transfer of District Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors, preferably every two to three years.
26. Mr. Raza Ud Din Khan, Advocate, submitted that IOs should receive at least six months of proper training and that only officers with adequate legal knowledge be appointed. He recommended complete separation of the investigation wing from the operational branch. He further highlighted deficiencies in medico-legal reports and
emphasized proper training of medical officers, proposing that qualified medico-legal experts be posted at every hospital.
27. Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate, supported the writ petitions and submitted that the Bar should be regulated to discourage unnecessary adjournments. He emphasized proper training of lawyers, doctors, and IOs. He proposed introducing an online FIR system, extending separation of investigation from operations up to DIG Investigation, and assessing IOs through Annual Confidential Reports monitored by SP and DIG Investigation. He recommended a provincial digital FIR database, secure Malkhanas, an accountability mechanism for false or exaggerated FIRs, periodic review by the Criminal Justice Coordination Committee, and the enactment of a Wrongful Prosecution (Compensation) Act to provide redress to aggrieved parties.
28. Mr. Junaid, Advocate, submitted that declining moral values lead the public to file false complaints and deter genuine witnesses from testifying, necessitating effective witness protection. He emphasized empowering IOs, proposing that heinous offences or those punishable with over ten years' imprisonment be handled by ASPs or DSPs. He observed inadequate prosecutorial oversight and recommended invoking Chapters 10 and 11 of the CrPC to address false or frivolous litigation. He suggested arrests should follow proper investigation, not be based solely on an FIR, and private complaints under section 200 CrPC or private investigators may be utilized in complex cases. He further proposed that directions under section 22A CrPC for FIR registration be issued promptly where a prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed, without requiring comments from the SHO who initially refused registration.
29. Mr. Fahim Akbar, Advocate, submitted that sections 154 to 173 of the CrPC are mandatory, and violations attract consequences under sections 166 PPC and 118 of the Police Act. He emphasized that IOs
must remain independent of SHO and District Police Officer control. He observed that prosecutors currently have no prescribed time limits for handling case files, and recommended a time-bound process. He noted conflicts between sections 4(1)(b)(ii) and 4(1)(c) of the Prosecution Act, 2005 and section 173 CrPC. He criticized delaying tactics by Bar members and the practice of summoning formal witnesses before material witnesses, suggesting reversal and prioritization of material witnesses to enable effective proceedings and proper invocation of sections 249A or 265K CrPC. He proposed amending section 250 CrPC to replace "may" with "shall," modernizing the process of summoning witnesses through CFMIS and IT systems, monitoring DFC performance, and installing CCTV cameras in every police station to ensure accountability and prevent human rights violations.
30. Mr. Javed Qamar, Additional Inspector General, Counter- Terrorism Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ("CTD"), submitted that the CTD has specialized investigation and intelligence wings, resulting in a higher conviction rate in CTD cases. He further recommended the introduction of faceless trials to ensure enhanced security for judges, prosecutors, IOs, and lawyers in terrorism-related matters.
31. Mr. Khizar Hayat, Advocate, submitted that the police are involved in unlawful confinement and that confessions are often extracted through torture. He noted that pre- and post-medical examinations of accused persons are rarely conducted in practice and urged proper enforcement. He further recommended digitization of police station records to ensure transparency and accountability.
32. Mr. Astaghfirullah, Advocate, submitted that although the CrPC, PPC, Police Act, and Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ("QSO"), provide sufficient legal framework, they are not implemented in their true spirit. He emphasized strict enforcement and accountability of all
stakeholders, including lawyers. He further recommended deputing female investigation officers in the investigation branch.
33. Mr. Abdul Saboor Khan, Advocate, supported the writ petitions and submitted that registration of an FIR under section 154 CrPC is mandatory, and any violation constitutes an offence under section 166(1) PPC and sections 118(1)(c) & (d) of the Police Act, as well as misconduct under section 2(iii) of the Police Rules. He proposed making section 166 PPC cognizable and invoked sections 182 and 211 PPC to curb false and frivolous FIRs and complaints. He further suggested invoking section 27AA of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ("ATA"), and section 32 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 2019 ("KPCNSA") where applicable. He observed that the compensatory provision under section 250 CrPC is insufficient and requires amendment, while defective investigations may be addressed through section 166(2) PPC. He highlighted the prosecution's failure under sections 5(d) and 7 of the Prosecution Act and relied on relevant Supreme Court judgments, including PLD 2002 SC 590, 2015 SCMR 1724, PLD 2017 SC 147, 2021 SCMR 1458, PLD
1984 SC 44, PLD 2016 SC 478, PLD 2019 SC 669, and 2025 SCP 88
(Jeehand v The State).
34. Mr. Saif Ullah Mohmand, Advocate, in support of the writ petitions submitted that a Justice of the Peace, while allowing an application under section 22A CrPC, should direct proceedings against the SHO under section 166 PPC and section 118 of Police Act. He noted that FIRs often do not accurately record the complainant's account and that the operational branch improperly conducts preliminary inquiries in cognizable matters. He recommended introducing an accountability mechanism for lawyers engaging in delaying tactics, unnecessary adjournments, strikes, or misleading clients, and suggested that SHOs should be law graduates. He observed deficiencies in the preparation of injury sheets, medico-legal reports, MLCs, and post-mortem reports.
He further proposed that case property, once produced before the court, should remain in the custody of the district courts, and that all investigative proceedings, particularly statements under section 161 CrPC, be recorded via videography.
35. Mr. Noman Kakakhel, Advocate, stated that circumstantial evidence should be encouraged and treated at par with ocular evidence. He further pointed out that special training in crime scene management and evidence collection is required for IOs, and that an effective system of accountability should be established.
36. Mr. Tayyab Zaman, Advocate, in support of the writ petitions argued that the complainant's true account is often not recorded by the Moharrir at police stations. He proposed that such proceedings, along with all investigative steps including statements under section 161 CrPC, be digitally recorded through audio and video facilities to ensure transparency. He further suggested that the CrPC and Police Act be amended to provide for such facilitation.
37. Mr. Sikandar Sahibzada, Advocate, stated that investigation is the foundational organ of the criminal justice system. He proposed that only qualified officers be permanently posted in the investigation wing, and that offences carrying the death penalty be investigated by officers of DSP or ASP rank, who should also submit final reports or challans. He recommended establishing a Forensic Science Laboratory in every district and a Prosecutor General to head the prosecution services. He suggested withdrawal of section 53A CrPC and omission of section 16 of the ATA. He further proposed extending the investigation period to thirty days to allow proper coordination between investigators and prosecutors. Finally, he recommended that the Public Safety and Complaints Commission under the Police Act, be made fully effective.
38. Mr. Raza Ullah, Advocate, submitted that many defects in the criminal justice system arise even before FIR registration, with false or
exaggerated complaints often lodged in collusion with police, implicating innocent persons. He proposed holding police officials liable under section 109 PPC where such FIRs are later proven false. He noted recurring delays in FIR registration and the need for diligent performance by medical officers, highlighting a shortage of Medico- Legal Officers (MLOs) in hospitals. He emphasized giving due weight to circumstantial evidence and utilizing modern investigative tools, including CCTV, CDR data, forensic analysis, and geo-fencing. He observed poor maintenance of police diaries and ineffective implementation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Witness Protection Act, 2021. He recommended an e-Roznamcha system, effective coordination between IOs and the District Public Prosecutor, and an accountability mechanism to monitor their performance. Finally, he stressed proper training for judicial officers, IOs, and lawyers to improve the criminal justice system.
39. Mr. Bakht Baidar Khan, District Public Prosecutor, Mardan, submitted that section 154 CrPC should be amended in line with section 22 of the Anti-Rape Act, 2021, to hold persons filing false allegations effectively liable, as section 182 PPC is currently inadequate. He proposed that case property, particularly in narcotics matters, be destroyed immediately after sample collection and otherwise kept in the District Malkhana under judicial control. He recommended providing body cameras to investigating officers and separating investigation from operations at all levels, including up to the IGP. Specified medico- legal officers should be appointed in all hospitals. For speedy trials, he suggested coercive measures, including attachment of salaries, blocking CNICs of witnesses, and invoking sections 174 and 228 PPC. Probation laws should be applied where appropriate. He further proposed extending challan submission timelines from 14 to 30 days to account for delays in FSL and DNA reports, and establishing forensic
laboratories in each division or sub-laboratories, along with a separate crime scene unit modeled on the Punjab Forensic Science Agency.
40. Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Khan Malizai (R), District and Sessions Judge, submitted that deputation of judicial officers to the Law Department, which previously ensured judicial input in legislation, has been discontinued. He emphasized that heinous offences should be investigated by senior police officers. He highlighted delays in preparation of medical reports by medical officers, which create opportunities for manipulation. He proposed separation of the investigation branch from operations, participation of public prosecutors at crime scenes to assist investigating officers, and recording of all investigative proceedings through video for transparency and accountability.
41. Mr. Muhammad Hamdan, Advocate, submitted that although Section 250 CrPC provides for compensation, it is seldom implemented. He proposed amending Section 250 to make its invocation mandatory, establish a clear procedure and timeline for payment, provide a mechanism for addressing nonpayment, and enhance compensation quantum, leaving determination to the court's discretion. He pointed out that the procedure for invoking Section 250 CrPC has been discussed in the cases of Rab Nawaz,1 Muhammad Afzal,2 Abdul Rauf3 and Ayesha Bibi4. He also suggested amending Section 544A CrPC to provide a comprehensive compensation mechanism and directing courts to invoke it where appropriate. He emphasized rigorous enforcement of Sections 182 and 191-211 PPC to discourage false claims and evidence. He further highlighted that refusal by police to act in cognizable offences constitutes an offence under Sections 166(1) and 217 PPC, defective investigations may be
1 Rabnawaz v. Mubri Khan (2019 PCr.LJ 894)
2 Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 1165)
3 Abdul Rauf v. Adul Razzak (1987 SCMR 1632)
4 Ayesha Bibi v. ADJ (2018 SCMR 791)
addressed under Section 166(2) PPC, and delays or obstruction of prosecution may attract Section 186(2) PPC. Finally, he stressed strengthening the CJCC and PJC and ensuring effective implementation of their decisions.
REPORTS AND SUGGESTIONS
42. The Court also sought assistance from all stakeholders, as well as comments from the respondents and reports regarding the criminal justice system, vide orders dated 11.09.2025 and 09.10.2025. In compliance with the said directions, comments, reports, synopses, suggestions, and other relevant materials were submitted.
43. Respondents 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 filed para-wise comments seeking dismissal of the writ petition. They raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, alleging that the petitioner has no cause of action, has concealed material facts, and has not cited specific instances or supporting case law. On merits, they stated that the provincial government has already invested significantly in police and prosecution in response to terrorism, and criminal justice reforms are ongoing under directions of the Supreme Court and this Court. They relied on the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prosecution Service (Amendment) Act 2025, particularly section 11A, to show that prosecution now has authority to scrutinise, screen, and withdraw false or frivolous cases before trial. Investigations are generally supervised by the prosecution, and occasional shortcomings are attributed to high case volume, shortage of officers, and limited resources, not negligence. The respondents contested allegations of inadequate forensic support, providing details of existing laboratories, notified experts under section 510 CrPC and Article 59 QSO, and interim forensic facilities including ballistics, DNA, serology, and digital evidence. They noted that work on a state- of-the-art independent Forensic Science Laboratory at Peshawar is
underway, with land acquired at Rs 486.20 million and a revised PC-1 forwarded to the Planning & Development Department. The proposed laboratory will cover DNA analysis, digital forensics, latent fingerprints, narcotics, firearms, questioned documents, and crime scene reconstruction. Progress depends on approval of the revised PC- 1 and release of funds. Annex II contains an SOP between CTD and the prosecution in terrorism cases, ensuring early FIR sharing, continuous consultation, timely dispatch of samples, vetting of challans, joint decisions on remand/bail, and accountability for lapses. Annex III reproduces the KP Prosecution Service Amendment Act 2025, which strengthens prosecutorial powers in investigation and trial. On this basis, respondents submitted that an effective legal and institutional framework exists, ongoing reforms address the grievances raised, and the petition merits dismissal.
44. Respondent No. 4, the Provincial Police Officer, submitted para-wise comments asserting that Sections 154 to 173 CrPC are mandatory and being complied with. FIR registration is a legal duty, and unlawful refusal is impermissible; the notion of "progress FIR" is unfounded. Under Section 126 of the Police Act, officers acting in good faith are not liable for penalties or damages. The respondent maintained that all stakeholders, including the police, prosecution, and Investigating Officers, perform their duties within the legal framework, and that low conviction rates arise from multiple factors, not solely from police investigation. Oversight mechanisms, including Complaint Cells, Internal Accountability Branches, and district/provincial monitoring, are operational. On investigation quality, training facilities for officers have been expanded, with specialized courses in crime scene management, forensic awareness, and legal procedure. Statistical data regarding sanctioned strength, qualifications, crime scene units, and investigation costs were provided. The FSL in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is functional in various disciplines, though some units
require additional equipment and staff. Disciplinary actions against delinquent officials have also been recorded. Regarding compensation, delays, and remedial measures, the respondent emphasized that Section 250 CrPC provides a compensatory mechanism and such issues fall within judicial determination. Recommendations for improvement include separation of investigation from operational duties, enhanced training, provision of crime scene units, recruitment of specialized staff, and adequate funding for timely and effective investigations.
45. The Inspector General of Police Khyber Pakhtunkhwa submitted a detailed reply pursuant to the Court's order, outlining steps for establishing a Model District Police in Peshawar, focusing on the investigation branch, human resources, logistics, and finances. The SSP Investigation has proposed creation of specialised units homicide, sexual offences, anti-car lifting, kidnapping for ransom, robbery/dacoity, and crime scene units with defined roles, adequate staffing, and modern equipment including forensic kits, cameras, light sources, and six posts of Assistant Forensic Scientists (Crime Scene). Instructions have been issued for strict compliance with CrPC sections 154, 156, 157, 161, and 173, discontinuation of progress FIRs, and recording new facts through supplementary statements. IOs are regularly nominated for provincial and national trainings, with proposals for joint workshops with the Prosecution and Forensic Science Laboratory. Internal monitoring measures include inspection of case diaries, scrutiny of challans before submission, maintenance of pending investigation data, and performance reporting to enhance quality and reduce delays. In response to the Court's identification of systemic deficiencies delays in FIR registration, flawed investigations, non-submission of challans, absence of prosecutorial oversight, and violations of fundamental rights, a comprehensive plan has been prepared. It proposes creation of 564 additional posts across investigation and specialised units, with full financial implications
including pay, allowances, and investigation cost enhancements for offences such as murder, hurt, kidnapping, robbery, vehicle snatching, burglary, rape, rioting, and narcotics. The report includes an organogram showing supervisory and specialised units, tables detailing human resource requirements for urban and rural divisions, SP rural offices, special legal branches, and crime scene units. Logistics requirements including vehicles, motorcycles, computers, crime scene vans, and accommodations, are quantified, distinguishing existing from additional needs. Proposed budgets include the recommendation that up to 50% of total funds be at the SSP Investigation's discretion for emergent circumstances. Annual financial implications for all units, staff, and crime scene operations have been calculated, presenting a complete structural, logistical, and fiscal framework for effective implementation of the Model District Police plan in Peshawar.
46. The Additional Chief Secretary Home & Tribal Affairs Department submitted a report highlighting the need for systemic reforms in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's criminal justice system to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice under Article 37(d) of the Constitution. The report notes that despite existing frameworks under the Police Order 2002 and Police Act, a fully independent investigation branch has not been established, affecting investigation quality and case finalisation. For the police operational wing, the report proposes proper FIR registration, elimination of manual vulnerabilities, and province- wide digitisation of FIRs, Roznamchas, and allied records for transparency, auditability, and real-time monitoring. For the investigation wing, it recommends creation of a fully independent branch under an Additional IGP Investigation with a separate budget, dedicated human resources, exclusive command structure, strengthened chain of custody, evidence preservation, forensic linkages, compliance with statutory timelines, merit-based investigator selection, specialised training in forensic sciences, digital evidence and procedural law,
mandatory videography of crime scenes, and professionalisation of police witnesses in deposition and court conduct. In the prosecution, the report proposes district-level early advice committees of senior prosecutors to review FIRs, scrutiny committees to examine investigation reports before submission, specialised cells for heinous offences, sexual offences, narcotics, and terrorism, and additional prosecutors for anti-terrorism courts to reduce delays and ensure continuity. For probation and parole, it recommends strengthening the Directorate of Reclamation and Probation, increasing officer strength, and activating provincial and sub-committees, especially for first-time and non-habitual offenders. Finally, the report suggests establishing an Integrated Criminal Justice Information System linking e-FIR, e- investigation dossier, e-challan, e-trial, e-convict records, and e- probation tracking, based on one-time data entry with multi-point usage and secure role-based access, integrated with the Forensic Science Agency and other relevant bodies
47. All District and Sessions Judges of thirty-five districts, along with Judges of Special Courts, submitted comments on the twenty questions posed by this Court. A clear consensus emerged: false and frivolous complaints/FIRs are prevalent; investigations are often poor and defective; the Bar does not fully cooperate, causing trial delays; and courts are overburdened with inadequate magistrate oversight. Judges recommended strict enforcement of penal and compensatory provisions under sections 166, 174-177, 182, 186, 191-200, 211, 217-218, 463-
465, 471 PPC, section 195 read with 476 CrPC, section 250 CrPC, and sections 118-119 of the Police Act. Deliberate case delays should attract costs/fines, and measures like blocking CNICs or attachment of witness salaries were suggested to ensure attendance. Sections 544A and 250 CrPC should be invoked appropriately. Training for IOs, Prosecutors, and Medical Officers through the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Academy was strongly recommended. Investigation must be
separated from operations at all levels, not only at police stations. Acquittal orders should clearly state reasons, identifying false complaints, defective investigations, fabricated laboratory reports, deficient medical opinions, false witnesses, or prosecutorial failures, enabling courts to initiate action under section 476 CrPC or recommend departmental proceedings. Judges also suggested limiting the automatic benefit of doubt, adopting an inquisitorial approach where warranted, and amending sections 154, 250, and 344 CrPC, while incorporating sections 166-188 PPC within section 476 CrPC to ensure accountability for falsehood, obstruction, and misuse of the criminal process. Applications for transfer of cases based on mala fide intent, false allegations, or ulterior motives should be discouraged, in order to ensure speedy disposal.
48. Mr. Amjad Zia Siddique, District and Sessions Judge, emphasized that sections 154, 155, 157 and 173 CrPC, and the corresponding provisions of the Police Act, are mandatory; refusal to register a cognisable offence constitutes a breach under section 118 of the Police Act. False, frivolous or exaggerated reports are already addressable under section 182 PPC and section 250 CrPC. He held that progress FIRs are unlawful, violate Article 10A, and must not be entertained. Prosecutors have a statutory duty to supervise investigation, discourage defective reports, and recommend action against delinquent officers. He observed that, despite formal separation, IOs remain subordinate to SHOs and DPOs; inexperienced staff are posted; and liaison between SP Investigation and DPP is largely absent, save through the Criminal Justice Coordination Committee. He concluded that the legal framework is adequate, but implementation is deficient, reflected in mechanical remands under sections 167 and 344 CrPC, non-compliance with timelines, and stereotyped acquittal reasoning without fixing responsibility. He recommended reasonable case load ceilings per court, enhancement of judicial strength, early
enforcement of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Criminal Courts Function and Case Management Rules 2019 (available on KP Judicial Academy website), and mandatory reporting of acquittals based on defective investigation to the competent authorities.
49. The Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Islamabad, submitted its comments reaffirming full cooperation and support for all initiatives aimed at legal and judicial reforms, particularly those focused on introducing structural improvements in the administration of the criminal justice system.
50. The Secretary, Law and Justice Commission, stated that in its meeting on 29 May 2025, the Commission formed an advisory committee to identify key areas for legal reform. The committee prioritized reforms in the CrPC, focusing on arrest procedures, delays, defective investigations, and probation and parole laws. The Commission assured full support and cooperation for judicial and legal reforms to improve justice delivery.
51. The Ministry of Law and Justice, through the Additional Attorney General stated that following the Eighteenth Amendment, criminal law, procedure, and evidence primarily fall under provincial legislative authority (Article 142(b)) 5, while federal oversight lies with the Ministries of Interior, Narcotics Control, and Human Rights. The Ministry expressed readiness to support structural and procedural reforms to strengthen the criminal justice system.
52. The Director General of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Academy highlighted that refusal to register FIRs in cognizable cases violates Sections 166, 217, 219 PPC and Sections 118(1)(c) & (d) of the Police Act, while false or frivolous FIRs may be addressed under Sections 182, 203, 211, 500 PPC, and compensation invoked under
5 142(b) Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and a Provincial Assembly shall have power to make laws with respect to criminal law, criminal procedure and evidence.
Section 250 CrPC. The practice of progress FIRs amounts to harassment and denial of fair trial and should be discontinued. Low conviction rates result from defective investigation, weak prosecutorial oversight, procedural lapses, and insufficient court proactivity. It was recommended that investigation be separated from operational duties at all levels, police be insulated from political influence, and the Criminal Justice Coordination Committee be empowered to enforce its decisions. Forensic services require strengthening, including creation of an independent forensic agency in line with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forensic Science Agency Act, 2020. The role of the Bar was emphasised, but frequent strikes, boycotts, and adjournments delay justice; accountability mechanisms should be enhanced. Sections 154-
173 CrPC are mandatory, and violations in challans or remand procedures infringe Articles 4, 9, 10A, and 14 of the Constitution. Section 250 CrPC should be amended to curb false litigation. Criminal trials are prolonged due to absenteeism of witnesses and counsel, underscoring the need for strong oversight of all stakeholders. The principle of benefit of reasonable doubt should be applied cautiously, only where evidence is genuinely unreliable or material omissions exist.
53. The CTD in their written comments highlighted that FIR registration in cognizable offences is mandatory under Sections 154 CrPC, 166, 217, 219 PPC, and Sections 118(1)(c) & (d) of the Police Act, while false or frivolous FIRs may be addressed under Sections 182, 203, 211, 500 PPC, with compensation under Section 250 CrPC. Progress FIRs were described as arbitrary, legally unsupported, and violative of fair trial; courts should discharge such FIRs. Low conviction rates are attributed to defective investigation, weak prosecutorial oversight, inadequate coordination, political pressure, limited resources, lack of modern technology, inadequate training, heavy workload, and absence of crime scene units. Separation of
investigation from operational duties at all levels and professional autonomy of police were strongly recommended. CTD emphasized strengthening the Criminal Justice Coordination Committee through statutory empowerment, operationalisation of an independent forensic agency, and improved coordination between police and prosecution. Delays in challans, improper remand, and non-compliance with statutory timelines undermine Articles 4, 9, 10A, and 14 of the Constitution. Inquisitorial powers under Sections 159 and 202 CrPC should be actively used, and the benefit of reasonable doubt should be applied narrowly. Strong oversight is needed to ensure timely disposal of cases. CTD has also proposed Field Operators with specialised six- month training and psychological assessment to ensure continuity, quality, and discipline in investigations. For high-risk cases, faceless courts and sufficient custody under Section 21E of the ATA were recommended to secure evidence and convictions. The Department also suggested considering investigating magistrates to ensure impartial and effective investigations. These measures aim to strengthen prosecution, uphold the rule of law, and maintain public confidence in criminal justice, particularly in terrorism cases
54. The Federal Investigation Agency ("FIA") in their written comments emphasized that FIR registration in cognizable offences is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC, with refusal or delay attracting liability under PPC and service rules. The FIA operates a multi-tiered system for receiving complaints, conducting enquiries, vetting evidence, and preparing Confidential Final Reports, with FIRs converted only upon competent approval. Dissatisfied complainants may approach the Justice of Peace under Section 22-A CrPC. False, frivolous, or exaggerated complaints are addressed under Sections 182, 203, 211, and 500 PPC, with internal disciplinary measures against officials facilitating such complaints. Progress FIRs fall outside the FIA's mandate, as they relate to provincial police. The FIA highlighted
that effective criminal justice depends on institutional strengthening, capacity building, and technological advancement. It cited improvements in training, digital forensics, and cyber-crime capabilities. Accountability exists internally through disciplinary mechanisms and externally via higher formations, Vigilance and Disciplinary Wing, parliamentary oversight, and judicial review. The FIA noted that prosecutorial supervision is exercised by its own prosecutors under the FIA Act, ensuring guidance and oversight from inception. Standing Order No. 05/2020 ensures monitoring of investigations, and Sections 154-173 CrPC are mandatory; non- submission of challans within time invites judicial scrutiny. On systemic concerns, the FIA recognized that defective investigation, unavailability of witnesses, inter-institutional non-cooperation, and limited forensic resources contribute to delays. Section 250 CrPC is available for compensation, with future legislative reforms suggested. Impartial, evidence-driven investigations supervised by judicial authorities are needed to safeguard Article 10-A rights. The principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt requires clarity to prevent misuse, ensuring acquittals reflect the merits of evidence. The FIA advocated periodic judicial oversight, enforcement of statutory duties, and enhanced coordination among all stakeholders to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system.
55. The Directorate of Prosecution, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, submitted a comprehensive report addressing the Court's queries on infrastructure, training, accountability, pendency, and coordination with investigation agencies. It highlighted that prosecution functions through regional and district offices and has established a Prosecution Training Academy at Peshawar, providing specialised training in witness protection, human rights, gender-based violence, trafficking, anti-terrorism, and performance-based prosecution, though staff strength and security remain insufficient.
Online access to FIRs depends on police information systems, which are in the process of integration. Delays in challan submission mainly arise from time spent rectifying legal and factual deficiencies identified during prosecutorial scrutiny. An internal accountability mechanism exists through administrative hierarchy, monitoring and evaluation, district/regional scrutiny committees, a central complaint cell, public complaint banners, and surprise inspections. The Directorate noted shortages of prosecutors in several districts and proposed assigning one regular prosecutor per court, supported by a special cell of senior prosecutors for case preparation, coordination with IOs, digital record- keeping, and administrative oversight. Additional recommendations include dedicated consultation rooms for prosecutors and IOs, enhanced training and mentoring, creation of new posts, independent offices for female prosecutors, and release of development funds. The report annexes the Policy Guidelines for Police and Prosecution Regarding Timely Submission of Complete and Interim Challan before the Court for Effective Prosecution 2024, issued pursuant to Amjid Khan6 and Gul Rehman7 cases. These guidelines establish a uniform framework for timely challan submission under sections 8(8) of the Prosecution Act and 26(9)(b) of the Police Act.
56. The Inspector General of Prisons submitted a report pursuant to the directions of this Court, stating that 10,216 under-trial prisoners, including male and female adults and juveniles, are presently confined across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa jails, as detailed in the annexed list. The report highlights that an effective oversight mechanism exists, holding jail authorities accountable under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules 2011 for violations of mandatory provisions of the Prison Rules. It is explained that the Prison Rules 2018 provide for regular external monitoring by designated officials, including Commissioners, District
6 Amjid Khan v. The State (2021 SCMR 1458)
7 Gul Rehman v. The State (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 795)
and Sessions Judges, DIG Police, and other authorised officers, who review jail administration, assess prisoner welfare, and forward recommendations for corrective action. Oversight is further reinforced by visits from senior officers of the Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Deputy Commissioners, and Regional Directors, who address issues on the spot where possible. Additional monitoring is carried out through District and Provincial Oversight Committees, established pursuant to Supreme Court directions, to ensure matters relating to prisoners, prisons, and jail administration are properly addressed. The Inspector General has also instituted a complaint cell at the Inspectorate level and provided a dedicated WhatsApp number for receiving and resolving complaints against jail administration.
57. The Centre for Governance Research submitted detailed comments in response to the Court's order, emphasizing that criminal investigations require professional skills and specialised training, necessitating a dedicated investigation cadre supported by institutional reforms under the Police Order 2002, Police Act, and judicial pronouncements. The submission stresses judicial and prosecutorial independence, structured recruitment, training, and oversight of investigators, and cautions against legislative expansions of executive magistracy that may undermine the constitutional separation of powers. It notes that amendments to the Prosecution Act risk weakening investigative independence, and highlights the need to strengthen oversight bodies, ensure proper scrutiny of FIR registration, eliminate illegal progress FIRs, and hold officials accountable for false, frivolous, or exaggerated complaints. The submission calls for a review of existing criminal laws to assess adequacy regarding arrest, investigation, compensation under Section 250 CrPC, witness protection, and magistrates' roles. The report observes that KP lacks an independent forensic laboratory, while effective prosecution requires functional institutions, proper resourcing, and coordination between
police and prosecution. It underscores the adversarial nature of the system, the limited scope of reasonable doubt, the mandatory character of Sections 154 and 173 CrPC, judicial delays, and the need for enhanced oversight to secure timely justice. Broader recommendations include structural reforms in the investigation branch, specialised training institutions, performance indicators, safeguards against abuse of arrest powers, improvements in traffic investigation, victim support, and witness protection, and the establishment of autonomous, credible forensic laboratories. The submission advocates a holistic reform agenda grounded in statutory compliance, accountability, constitutional guarantees, and public confidence in the justice sector.
58. The Assistant Chief, Planning and Development Department, on behalf of the Additional Chief Secretary, submitted a report regarding the establishment of FSL at Peshawar, emphasizing the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's commitment to scientific investigation, improving conviction rates, and strengthening justice sector institutions in line with Sustainable Development Goals. It was noted that the Province currently lacks a fully equipped and independent forensic facility, relying on limited or external arrangements, which causes delays and affects trial quality. The report outlines the project's history, including preparation of a concept note, formulation of a PC-1, and submission to the Planning Commission via the Integrated Development Strategy and P&D Department for inclusion in the Public Sector Development Programme. While discussed at pre-CDWP level, it was not reflected in the federal portfolio. Subsequently, the Home and Tribal Affairs Department proposed financing through the provincial development budget or Annual Development Programme. The concept note has also been shared with the Economic Affairs Division to approach potential donors, but no positive response has been received. Given the large estimated cost, financing from the current year's budget is not feasible,
and it is suggested that the scheme be included in next year's Annual Development Programme with expenditure from the Provincial Exchequer. The report is submitted for the kind consideration of the Court as the considered position of the Additional Chief Secretary, Planning and Development Department, on the status and way forward for the Forensic Science Laboratory project.
QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION
59. The submission of parties and stakeholders brought crucial and central issues of criminal justice system before the court. Therefore, The Court, vide order dated 11.09.2025, having realized the significance and far-reaching implications of these petitions, constituted a Larger Bench and framed the following questions.
1) Whether the refusal of the police to register an FIR in cognizable cases under Section 154 CrPC, and its subsequent registration through an application under Section 22-A CrPC, renders the police liable to penal and compensatory consequences?
2) Whether a false, frivolous, or exaggerated FIR or complaint entails penal and compensatory liability for the complainant, as well as for the police officers who facilitate such proceedings?
3) Whether the practice of registering "progress FIRs" without credible complaints in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 4, 9 and 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
4) Whether defective investigation, inadequate prosecutorial oversight, and delays or improper application of law and procedure by the criminal courts are contributing factors to the low conviction rate in the country, particularly in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?
5) Whether the investigation branch of the police is fully independent of the operational branch so as to effectively and independently perform its statutory duties?
6) Whether the existing substantive and procedural criminal laws in force in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are sufficient to meet the needs of modern times, particularly with reference to the strengthening of the criminal justice system, or whether they stand in need of revision?
7) Whether there exists any proper and effective oversight mechanism to hold various stakeholders of the criminal justice system-such as the judiciary, police, prosecution, investigating officers, medico-legal officers, and jail authorities-accountable for non-compliance with their statutory duties and other mandatory provisions?
8) Whether independent forensic laboratory exists in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and if not, whether any measures have been taken to establish the same or otherwise?
9) Whether the prosecution is fulfilling its statutory duties as envisaged under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2005, including but not limited to the duty of prosecutorial supervision?
10) Whether the role of the Bar in the dispensation of criminal justice is adequate and up to the mark or otherwise?
11) Whether the failure of the prosecution to submit challans within the statutory period of fourteen days, as mandated under Section 173 CrPC, amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights of under-trial prisoners guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, and 10-A of the Constitution, and whether such failure entails penal or compensatory consequences?
12) Whether the provisions of Sections 154 to 173 CrPC are mandatory or directory in nature?
13) Whether, in cases where challans are not submitted within the statutory period, the passing of judicial custody/remand orders by the courts is lawful or whether such practice results in illegal and unconstitutional detention of accused persons?
14) Whether the cumulative structural failures in the criminal justice system of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa including fabricated FIRs, procurement of false witnesses, absence of scientific methods of investigation, compromised forensic independence, lack of prosecutorial supervision, and persistent delays in submission of challans, amount to a systemic denial of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 10-A, 14, and 25 of the Constitution?
15) Is there any compensatory mechanism, aside from the penal provisions, in the existing legal framework to compensate a citizen who has been wrongfully charged in a criminal case, whose time has been wasted, who has been held in police custody or jail, and whose movable and immovable property has been affected due to false or frivolous litigation, but who is ultimately acquitted? Specifically, does the framework impose adequate costs or fines on the state or its functionaries, or provide other remedies for such individuals?
16) Whether non-submission of challans within the stipulated time, defective investigations, hampering prosecution, and production of false or fabricated evidence before the Courts can be effectively addressed within the existing legal framework; and if so, what should be the mechanism, and if not, what recommendations are to be made for the legislature?
17) Whether the existing criminal justice system, as presently structured and administered, is adversarial in nature, inquisitorial in nature, or embodies a combination of both models?
18) Whether the principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' requires definition and limitation, so as to prevent the incompetencies of investigation from being treated as a benefit of doubt?
19) Whether criminal trials are being concluded within the statutory period or not; and whether the law provides any remedial measures in cases where trials are not concluded within the specified period?
20) What directions or a writ of continuing mandamus can this Court issue to ensure compliance with statutory provisions, constitutional guarantees, and international best practices, with a view to reforming the criminal justice system of the Province and restoring faith and public confidence of the citizens upon the justice sector?
ISSUE OF MAINTAINABILITY
60. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is incumbent upon us to decide the objections as to maintainability of the present petitions as raised by some of the respondents. The objections are based on two main grounds: first, that the petitioners are not 'aggrieved persons' to seek the issuance of a writ; and second, that such matters can only be raised before the proper forum by an aggrieved person. Regarding the first objection, it must be noted that the present petitions are in the nature of Public Interest Litigation ("PIL"). In PIL, it is not strictly necessary for the petitioners to be an aggrieved person. Rather, such litigation is brought to enforce the public interest. Halsbury's Laws of India states that "lexically, the expression 'public interest litigation' means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liability are affected." In this sense, PIL serves as a transformative tool to overcome traditional legal, technical, and procedural barriers, ensuring justice especially social justice for individuals, groups, or communities. It empowers those who, due to personal limitations, economic hardships, societal marginalization, or state oppression, are unable to seek redress in a court of law. Moreover,
litigation in public interest should be bonafide and for the promotion of public interest. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Javed Ibrahim Paracha v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2004 SC 482) held as:
"10. No doubt with the development of new concept of public interest litigation in the recent years, a person can invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the superior Courts as pro bono publico but while exercising this jurisdiction, he has to show that he is litigating, firstly, in the public interest and, secondly, for the public good or for the welfare of the general public. The word `pro bono publico' as defined in Black Law Dictionary, Chambers Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary generally means `for the public good' or `for welfare of the whole' being or involving uncompensated legal services performed especially for the public good. `Public interest' in the Black Law Dictionary, has been defined as the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection. Something in which the public as a whole has a stake; esp., an interest that justifies governmental regulation. It thus signifies that in case of public interest litigation, one can agitate the relief on his own behalf and also on behalf of the general public against various public functionaries, where they have failed to perform their duties relating to the welfare of public at large which they are bound to provide under the relevant laws. Viewing the bona fide of petitioner in the above contest, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to show that he was aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution and can agitate his grievance as `pro bono publico'."
61. Similarly, as regard the enlargement of the scope of 'aggrieved person' in the context of public interest litigation, the Supreme Court in Premier Battery Industries Private Limited v. Karachi Water And Sewerage Board and others (2018 SCMR 365) held as follow:
"12. Coming to the alternative stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter may be treated as 'public interest litigation'. It is noted that on realizing that the petitioner was unlikely to succeed in view of his failure to participate in the process at any stage, the learned counsel tried to persuade us to examine the matter as one of public importance to undo the process, which according to him, had been undertaken in violation of SPP Act, 2009 and the Rules framed thereunder. It was urged that the entire process be repeated afresh. This necessitates an examination of the scope and parameters of public interest litigation. Such litigation does not strictly fall under any part of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. However, it has received judicial recognition enabling the Courts to enlarge the scope of the meaning of 'aggrieved person' under Article 199 of the Constitution to include a public spirited person who brings to the notice of the
Court a matter of public importance requiring enforcement of Fundamental Rights. However, the constitutional jurisdiction of the superior Courts is required to be exercised carefully, cautiously and with circumspection to safeguard and promote public interest and not to entertain and promote speculative, hypothetical or malicious attacks that block or suspend the performance of executive functions by the Government."
62. In the present context, this Court is satisfied that the instant petitions fall squarely within the rubric of public interest litigation. The petitioners have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction not for personal gain, but to vindicate rights of a class of persons who, due to incarceration, economic constraints and systemic marginalisation, are unable to effectively access justice on their own. The grievances pleaded relate to alleged violations of Article 10-A, which guarantees fair trial and due process, including timely conclusion of proceedings, as well as Article 4, which secures inviolability of dignity, liberty and treatment in accordance with law, rights that extend equally to under- trial prisoners. Given that the petitions raise questions of systemic deprivation of fundamental rights affecting thousands of vulnerable individuals, the petitioners qualify as public spirited persons within the meaning evolved by the superior Courts. The Supreme Court has recognised that the ambit of "aggrieved person" under Article 199 may, in appropriate cases, be enlarged to include those who espouse causes of public importance requiring judicial enforcement of fundamental rights, especially where direct sufferers cannot approach the Court themselves. The same principle has been reiterated in Riaz Ahmad v. Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2013 CLC 1291 Peshawar), Moulvi Iqbal Haider Vs Capital Development Authority (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 394), F-9 Park case (PLD 2010 SC 759), Muhammad Ahmed Pansota Vs Federation of Pakistan (2020 PLD Lah 229) and Human Right Case No 18877/2018 (PLD 2019 SC 645) where it was held that matters involving public welfare may be taken cognizance of pro bono publico and that such classification does not diminish locus standi, because petitioners may simultaneously be
aggrieved persons if their or public rights are affected. In Echo West International (Pvt) Vs Govt of Punjab (2009 PLD SC 406), it was held that this concept has received judicial recognition enabling the Courts to enlarge the scope of the meaning of 'aggrieved person' under Article 199 of the Constitution to include a public spirited person who brings to the notice of the Court a matter of public importance. The Lahore High Court in Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2022 Lahore 288) similarly affirmed that public interest litigation enables constitutional courts to extend the meaning of "aggrieved person" to include a public spirited actor, provided the litigation is bona fide and demonstrably aimed at advancing public good. Applying these settled principles, the instant petitions, which seek judicial scrutiny of systemic deficiencies causing prolonged incarceration, denial of procedural safeguards, and erosion of constitutionally protected liberties, are plainly maintainable as pro bono publico actions, and the petitioners fall within the expanded category of aggrieved persons contemplated by Article 199 of the Constitution.
63. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, being the foundational social contract between the State and its citizens, mandates that the organs of the State discharge their functions in a manner that safeguards and enforces the fundamental rights guaranteed in Chapter 1 of Part II. Article 9 protects life and liberty and permits no deprivation except in accordance with law. Article 10 safeguards the rights of arrested and detained persons by requiring that the grounds of arrest be disclosed and that production before a magistrate be ensured within twenty four hours, and Article 14 declares the dignity of man and the privacy of home to be inviolable and forbids torture for the purpose of extracting evidence. These rights impose a corresponding constitutional duty upon the State to establish, maintain and operate a system of criminal justice that ensures lawful investigation, effective
prosecution and fair adjudication. Article 8 prohibits the State from making or enforcing any law in derogation of fundamental rights, and Article 199 empowers the High Court to enforce these rights against any public authority acting without lawful authority. Article 37(d) further directs the State to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice as a principle of policy. Failure of the State or any of its instrumentalities to secure these guarantees, whether through defective investigation, delayed prosecution or denial of fair trial rights, amounts to a violation of constitutional obligations and undermines the social contract upon which the rights and liberties of the people are founded. Thus, where fundamental rights are involved, the court must extend the arm of justice in line with the maxim Est boni judicis ampliare justitiam, non jurisdictionem, meaning that a good judge enlarges justice, not jurisdiction. The maxim requires the judge to expand legal remedies and, without usurping jurisdiction, apply the rules of law to advance substantial justice. The arguments advanced, the reports submitted and the comments rendered by the parties make it incumbent upon this Court to take cognizance of the matter under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, as the enforcement of fundamental rights is directly involved.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE ROLE OF ITS CONSTITUENT COMPONENTS
64. Before addressing the formulated questions, it is apt to briefly touch upon the criminal justice system and its principal contours. The system is anchored in the notion of "crime", a term synonymous with "offence" under PPC and the CrPC, denoting any act or omission punishable under law. Crime, however, is not an isolated incident; it is a complex social phenomenon produced by multiple, interacting determinants. Its causes are multifaceted: social (poverty, inequality, exclusion), economic (financial instability and lack of opportunity),
psychological (mental illness, addiction, impulsiveness), environmental (urban decay, overcrowding, easy access to weapons), political and institutional (weak law enforcement, corruption, judicial delay), technological (cybercrime, illicit markets), and cultural or ideological (extremism, radicalization). The absence of credible deterrence through ineffective policing, prosecution, and judicial response further emboldens criminality. Accordingly, crime reduction requires a holistic and coordinated strategy that addresses root causes rather than symptoms. Meaningful prevention demands economic uplift through poverty alleviation, investment in education and ethical awareness, institutional strengthening of law enforcement, prosecution and judiciary, community engagement for safer neighbourhoods, and rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. Above all, the criminal justice system itself demands comprehensive reform so that it becomes responsive, preventive, capable of prosecuting offenders effectively, restoring public trust, and creating real deterrence.
65. The administration of justice is a core State function enforced through lawful authority. The criminal justice system forms a major branch of this framework, responsible for crime prevention, punishment, and rehabilitation. It operates through interconnected actors performing distinct roles. The process begins with the public, (victims, complainants, and witnesses) whose reporting enables State action. Litigants contest their claims before investigative agencies and courts. Police are responsible for preventing crime; once an offence occurs, they investigate, arrest accused persons, and pursue prosecution. Medical professionals and medico-legal officers provide examinations and reports, while forensic laboratories supply scientific evidence to support investigation and trial. The prosecution represents the State, evaluates evidence, and conducts proceedings to secure convictions. Lawyers protect rights and assist courts. The judiciary adjudicates guilt, interprets the law, imposes punishment, and ensures
due process. Correctional institutions maintain custody and rehabilitation of convicted persons. These components function sequentially to uphold the rule of law. Yet, as noted by Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT), Pakistan's conviction rate stands at only 8.66%, significantly lower than regional and developed jurisdictions, reflecting systemic weaknesses requiring reform.
1. Duties of the Public, the Parties and Witnesses
66. The first and most fundamental component of the criminal justice process is the public. Yet, the system is frequently burdened with false, frivolous, or exaggerated complaints; misleading statements; concealment of facts; and reluctance to appear as witnesses or support testimony, conduct that obstructs investigation and impairs fair justice. This reflects a broader erosion of essential moral values truthfulness, fulfilment of promises, and loyalty to trust, now increasingly absent in social behaviour. Individuals distort facts, breach commitments, and violate trust, weakening the moral fabric necessary for societal stability and progress. While multiple socio-economic causes underlie this decline, the absence of effective accountability within the criminal justice system allows such tendencies to thrive. Ensuring strict legal consequences for false complaints, misleading statements, and breaches of trust would serve as a powerful deterrent. Strengthening accountability at this foundational level is thus vital to promote truthfulness, restore public confidence, and enable the system to function with integrity and fairness. In the case of Constble Khizar Hayat8, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that:-
"Adverting to the Islamic principles relevant to the issue at hand we note that the following verses of the Holy Qur'an deal with the matter of giving testimony:
"And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it]" (Surah Al-Baqarah: verse 42), "And let not the
8 PLD 2019 Supreme Court 527.
witnesses refuse when they are called upon" (Surah Al-Baqarah: verse 282), "And do not conceal testimony, for whoever conceals it- his heart is indeed sinful" (Surah Al-Baqarah: verse 283), "O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is acquainted with what you do" (Surah Al-Ma'idah: verse 8), "O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives" (Surah An-Nisa: verse 135), "So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, acquainted" (Surah An-Nisa: verse 135), ""And establish the testimony for [the acceptance of] Allah" (Surah At-Talaq: verse 2), " And we will not withhold the testimony of [i.e. ordained by] Allah. Indeed, we would then be of the sinful." (Surah Al-Ma'idah: verse 106), "And avoid false statement" (Surah Al-Haj: verse 30), "And they who do not bear witness to what is false" (Surah Al-Furqan: verse 72).
From the above, it can be seen that giving testimony its due importance and weight is an obligatory duty and those who stand firm in their testimonies are among the people of righteousness and faith. Among the necessities of faith is giving truthful testimony even if against oneself or a relative. If there are no other witnesses that would enable justice to be done and there is a fear that someone's right may be lost, it then becomes the individual responsibility of the few available witnesses to testify. Islam not only enjoins giving testimony, it also forbids concealing it because concealing evidence is something that is disapproved in Islam and detested by nature. Giving false testimony has many evils for it supports falsehood against truth and promotes injustice and aggression against justice. It also effaces fairness and equity and poses danger to public safety and security."
67. Public reluctance to testify in criminal cases largely stems from deep-rooted fear of reprisal, hostility, and longstanding enmities, which undermine effective justice delivery. To counter this, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Witness Protection Act, 2021 provides a comprehensive statutory framework but awaits meaningful implementation. It establishes a Witness Protection Board and specialised Protection Units for terrorism and heinous offences, empowered to extend close protection, relocation, safe housing, interim identity change, and financial assistance (ss. 7-8), alongside in-court safeguards such as screened testimony, video-link examination, restricted public access, and tailored cross-examination rules (ss. 10-13), with anonymity orders and publication prohibitions (ss. 14-15). Complementing this, the
Provincial Government has also enacted the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Witness Protection Rules, 2025, which operationalise the Act by prescribing detailed criteria for risk assessment, provision of close protection services, secure safe houses, and video-link examination facilities. Collectively, these protections can address fear-driven non- cooperation and enable testimony without intimidation; however, as their current scope is confined to heinous and terrorism-related offences, there is a pressing need to extend them to witnesses in all categories of offences to strengthen justice delivery.
68. This Court notes that effective criminal justice presupposes an informed and responsible citizenry. Article 59 of the Constitution declares loyalty to the State and obedience to the Constitution and law as the inviolable obligation of every citizen and person within Pakistan.10 This provision entails a dual responsibility: abstaining from violation of the law and positively conducting oneself in accordance with it, which necessarily includes assisting the State in the discharge of lawful functions. Failure to fulfil this duty ultimately harms society, for the State exists for the welfare of its people. This constitutional obligation is reinforced by statute. Sections 42, 44, 45 and 59 CrPC require citizens to assist Magistrates, Justices of Peace and police in arresting offenders, preventing breaches of peace, protecting property and providing information regarding serious offences, suspicious movements and unexplained deaths. Likewise, Sections 176, 202 and 187 PPC criminalise intentional concealment of offences, withholding legally compelled information, and omission to assist public servants. These provisions reflect the legislative recognition that policing and justice depend on public cooperation and that refusal to provide such
9 5. Loyalty to State and obedience to Constitution and law. (1) Loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen. (2) Obedience to the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.
10 2012 PLD Supreme Court 610, 2011 PLD SC 997, 2022 CLC 959, 2021 PLC(CS) N 12
Peshawar.
assistance constitutes an offence. Equally, false claims, frivolous complaints, exaggerated assertions, false evidence and fabricated documents undermine justice and attract consequences under Sections 250 and 476 CrPC. Accordingly, while courts cannot enter the realm of policy, they may, within the ambit of law, reiterate these constitutional and statutory duties and direct competent authorities to enforce them in accordance with law.
2. Police Functions and Investigation: An Overview
69. Historically, policing has evolved from informal, community- based watch systems to organised, statutory and centrally administered institutions. The term "police," originating from the Greek "polis," reflects its roots in early urban governance, where unpaid community members performed basic public safety functions such as patrolling, protecting pathways, controlling fires and apprehending offenders. Structural formalisation emerged gradually in Europe, including the High Constables of Edinburgh in 1611 and England's Justice of the Peace Act of 1361. Modern policing, however, is universally attributed to the London Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 introduced by Sir Robert Peel, whose philosophy centred on crime prevention through organised structure, central command and visible patrols. His nine principles, articulated nearly two centuries ago, continue to underpin sound policing practice today.11
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties depends on public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity to use physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
11 Dempsey, J. and Forst, L. (2008). An introduction to policing. Belmont, CA: Thompson- Wadsworth, 7-8.
6. Police use of physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advise and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their attention strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
70. In the subcontinent, the foundations of present-day policing lie in the colonial Police Act of 1861, a statute designed primarily to control a colonised population rather than to serve public welfare. Pakistan remained under this regime until the promulgation of the Police Order, 2002. Following the Eighteenth Amendment, policing became a provincial subject, resulting in divergent legal frameworks: the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act, 2017; the Balochistan Police Act, 2011; the Sindh law repealing the Police Act, 1861 and reviving the Police Order, 2002 as amended in 2019; and the Police Order, 2002 as retained in Punjab. Despite reforms, the policing system remains in a phase of structural and functional evolution. Notably, under the Police Act 2017, police officers are duty-bound to treat the public with decorum and courtesy, promote social harmony, assist vulnerable persons, protect minorities and their places of worship, and safeguard life, property, honour and liberty. Core statutory responsibilities include maintaining public order, preventing and investigating offences, prosecuting offenders, and ensuring the rights and welfare of persons in custody. Sections 3 and 4 of the Police Act 2017 encapsulate these obligations.
3. Attitude and responsibilities of police towards the public.---It shall be the responsibility of every police officer to-
(a) behave with the members of the public with due decorum and courtesy;
(b) promote amity in the society;
(c) guide and assist members of the public particularly the poor, disabled or physically weak and children who are either
lost or find themselves helpless on the streets or other public places;
(d) aid individuals who are in danger of physical harm particularly women and children; and
(e) protect life and property of minorities and their places of worship.
4. Duties of police.---(1)Subject to law, it shall be the duty of every police officer to-
(a) protect life, property, honour and liberty of citizens;
(b) detect, investigate and bring offenders to justice;
(c) maintain public order and security;
(d) preserve and promote public peace;
(e) counter militancy and terrorism;
(f) ensure that the rights and privileges, under the law, of a person taken in custody, are protected;
(g) prevent the commission of offences and public nuisance;
(h) collect and communicate intelligence affecting public peace and crime in general;
(i) keep order and prevent obstruction on public roads and in the public streets and thoroughfares, at fairs and all other places of public resort and in the neighborhood of and at the vulnerable and sensitive places including places of public worship;
(j) regulate and control traffic on public roads and streets;
(k) take charge of all unclaimed property and to prepare its inventory;
(l) provide information in the prescribed manner regarding unclaimed property, to prevent the abuse of such property;
(m) apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorized to apprehend and for whose apprehension, sufficient grounds exist;
(n) ensure that the information about the arrest of a person is promptly communicated to a person of his choice;
(o) enter and inspect without a warrant on reliable information any public place, shop or gaming-house where alcoholic drinks or narcotics are sold or weapons are illegally stored and other public places of resort of loose and disorderly characters;
(p) obey and promptly execute all lawful orders;
(q) perform other duties and exercise powers as are conferred by this Act, the Code or any other law for the time being in force;
(r) aid and co-operate with other agencies for the prevention of destruction of public property by violence, fire, or natural calamities;
(s) assist in preventing members of public from exploitation by any person or organized groups;
(t) take charge of lunatics at large to prevent them from causing harm to themselves or other members of the public and their property;
(u) prevent harassment of women and children in public places;
(v) take action against vagrants for security purposes and to confiscate anything found from them in favour of Government; and
(w) create public awareness regarding their lawful rights and duties and educate the public regarding their safety and security.
(2) Police officer shall make every effort to-
(a) afford relief to people in distress situations, particularly in respect of women and children;
(b) provide assistance to victims of road accidents;
(c) assist accident victims or their heirs or their dependents, where applicable, with such information and documents as would facilitate their compensation claims; and
(d) cause awareness amongst public regarding traffic laws and inform the victims of road accidents of their rights and privileges.
(3) It shall be the duty of a police officer to lay information before a competent court and to apply for a summons, warrant, search warrant or such other legal process as may, by law, be issued against any person suspected of committing an offence.
(4) Every police officer while on police duty shall have all the powers and privileges of a police officer, under any law for the time being in force and be liable to serve at any time in any branch, division, bureau and section.
71. Besides other grievances against the police, a major concern consistently raised by the general public is the rude and discourteous behaviour of police personnel, whether at police stations or during public interactions. Sections 3 and 4 of the Police Act 2017 expressly prohibit such conduct and mandate courteous, respectful and citizen- centred policing. It is therefore imperative that the police department faithfully implements these provisions in letter and spirit and eliminates the thana culture12 as generally perceived by the public.
3. Prevention of crime and role of law enforcement agencies
72. The law imposes a clear statutory mandate upon the police to prevent crime and preserve public peace. Chapter XIII of the CrPC, 1898, read with Chapter XXI of the Police Rules, 1934, sets out preventive policing powers: section 149 obliges police to prevent cognizable offences; section 150 requires prompt communication of information of intended offences; section 151 authorises arrest without warrant to forestall their commission; section 152 permits action to
12 Thana culture refers to the traditional policing mindset and practices associated with police stations (thanas), often marked by bureaucratic red tape, lack of accountability, corruption, abuse of authority, and discourteous or uncooperative treatment of the public.
protect public property; and section 153 enables inspection and seizure of false weights and measures to avert fraud. This federal framework is reinforced provincially through the Police Act, 2017, which declares prevention of offences and public nuisance a core duty (s.4(g)), supported by operational powers under sections 82-89. These include emergency orders for maintaining public order (s.82), regulation of assemblies and processions (ss.83-84), temporary prohibition of arms (s.86), safety directions at gatherings (s.87), regulation of streets (s.88), and search powers where unlawful items are suspected (s.89). Complementary provisions of the PPC criminalise preparatory acts, sections 107-109 (abetment) and 120A-120B (criminal conspiracy), thus enabling early intervention where intent is manifest. Collectively, these enactments demonstrate that preventive policing is a statutory duty central to maintaining peace and safeguarding life, liberty and property. However, such authority must operate within defined safeguards. In the absence of structured procedures, preventive powers risk misuse to the detriment of personal liberty. Accordingly, it is observed that the Provincial Government, in consultation with Police, Prosecution, the KP Judicial Academy, and Law, parliamentary affairs and Human Rights department, may formulate Standard Operating Procedures to regulate preventive measures, ensuring their exercise remains lawful and aligned with fundamental rights.
4. Reporting of cases at Hospitals
73. In criminal jurisprudence, prompt registration of a case is of foundational importance, and superior courts have consistently held that an offence, once committed, must be promptly reported to the police to prevent manipulation, consultation, loss of evidence, memory lapses, false implication, and to ensure that the original version of the occurrence is placed on record. In this context, casualty police posts have been established at hospitals to ensure immediate reporting in cases of hurt. However, it is frequently observed that officials of local
police stations visit hospitals and record reports by bypassing the casualty police available there, which creates serious doubts regarding the time and manner of reporting. Such practice must be avoided. Where no casualty police are available at a hospital, the local police station may assume responsibility for reporting. To ensure uniformity and certainty, the Inspector General of Police should issue a clear standing order, prepare and circulate a district wise and province wide list of hospitals showing functional casualty police posts and hospitals lacking such posts, display the list in control rooms, and integrate it into police information systems where available. A written Standard Operating Procedure should also be framed, clearly defining the responsibility of the casualty police, the stage at which investigation shifts to the local police station, and the protocol for transmission of the report after registration, with written justification required for any deviation.
5. Arrest of accused and article 10 and 14(2) of the constitution of Pakistan
74. The law recognises arrest as a coercive measure permissible only for defined purposes: securing the accused's presence, preventing abscondence, protecting evidence and witnesses, and averting further conflict or breach of peace. Mere registration of an FIR does not justify arrest; material grounds must exist, as false allegations are not uncommon. Ordinarily no person is to be arrested straightaway only because he has been nominated as an accused person in an FIR or in any other version of the incident brought to the notice of the investigating officer by any person until the investigating officer feels satisfied that sufficient justification exists for his arrest and for such justification he is to be guided by the relevant provisions of the CrPC, 1898 and the Police Rules, 1934.13 Effective investigation lies not in
13 Sughran Bibi Vs The State (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595)
arrest but in identifying the real offender, collecting admissible evidence, and securing conviction through due process. The doctrine commonly known as "Miranda rights", having its roots in the United States Supreme Court decision in Miranda v Arizona,14 reflects the principle that no person may be compelled to self-incriminate and must be informed of his rights before custodial questioning. Though originating in U.S. jurisprudence, equivalent guarantees exist in Pakistan under Articles 10, 10-A and 14 of the Constitution: the right to know the grounds of arrest, access to counsel, protection against self- incrimination, and an absolute bar on torture or degrading treatment. The Supreme Court, in the case of Muhammad Bashir,15 explicitly explained as "The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan prescribes important safeguards against depriving a person of his "life or liberty"16 and with regard to arrest and detention,17 which includes "the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice".18 The Constitution also mandates a "fair trial and due process".19 A person arrested for an offence (1) must be informed of the grounds of his arrest; (2) must be permitted to consult with and be defended by a lawyer; (3) must be provided with the information of the offence he is charged for; (4) must be provided with an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses who depose against him; (5) must be given an opportunity to explain the circumstances disclosed in evidence against him; and (6) must also be provided an opportunity to produce evidence in his defence. These are also necessary ingredients to ensure the fairness of a trial". These protections ensure that evidence produced before court is reliable and the process legitimate. Moreover, Article 10(2) and section 61 CrPC mandate production of accused before a
14 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966).
15 Muhammad Bashir Vs The State (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 334)
16 Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
17 Article 10 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
18 Article 10(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
19 Article 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Magistrate within twenty-four hours, and further custody requires judicial approval supported by reasons. Magistrates must ensure pre- and post-custody medical examinations. Custodial torture constitutes an offence under section 166(1) PPC, section 119(d)20 of the Police Act 2017, Article 156(d) of the Police Order 2002, and section 8 of the Torture and Custodial Death Act 2022, which also triggers relevant PPC offences where injuries are proved. Special safeguards protect women21, including rank-based arrest, search by a lady constable, and prohibition on night detention under Rule 26.18(2) of the Police Rules 1934. Yet violations persist: delayed production before Magistrates, non-communication of grounds of arrest, denial of counsel, and coercive interrogation, despite the availability of modern investigative tools such as digital data, CCTV, DNA and forensics which render such practices unnecessary. It is clarified that extra judicial killings, fake encounters, and enforced disappearances constitute violations of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 10, 10A, and 14 of the Constitution.
75. As far as refusal by the police to register an FIR in cognizable cases is concerned, the superior courts have consistently held in numerous judgments22 that the police have no authority to refuse registration of an FIR where a cognizable offence is disclosed. The Supreme court in Muhammad Bashir,23 held that the SHO cannot refuse registration of an FIR or pre-judge its truth, and that investigation or arrest is not conditional upon an FIR; the remedy for false reporting
20 Penalty for vexatious entry, search, arrest, seizure of property, torture, etc.---Whoever, being a police officer-(d) inflicts torture or violence to any person in his custody; shall, for every such offence, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.
21 52. Mode of searching women. Whenever it is necessary to cause a woman to be searched, the search shall be made by another woman, with strict regard to decency
22 Abdul Rehman Malik Vs The State (2020 SCMR 2037), Safdar Hayat Vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (2022 P Cr. L J 461), Khursheed Bibi Vs SP ( 2009 MLD 1076), Jamil Khan Vs Abdur Rahim (PLD 2009 SC 102), Salahuddin Khan S.H.O. Vs Noor Jehan (PLD 2008 Peshawar 53), Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah Vs The state (1993 SCMR 550)
23 Muhammad Bashir v. SHO Okara (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 539).
lies in prosecution under section 182 PPC, not refusal to record information. The relevant part is reproduced below:
27. The conclusions that we draw from the above, rather lengthy discussion, on the subject of F.I.R., are asunder:--
(a) no authority vested with an Officer Incharge of a Police Station or with anyone else to refuse to record an F.I.R. where the information conveyed, disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence-
(b) no authority vested with an Officer Incharge of a Police Station or with anyone else to hold any inquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the information which is conveyed to the S.H.O. for the purposes of recording of an F.I.R.
(c) any F.I.R. registered after such an exercise i.e. determination of the truth or falsity of the information conveyed to the S.H.O., would get hit by the provisions of section 162, Cr.P.C.
(d) existence of an F.I.R. is no condition precedent for holding of an investigation nor is the same a prerequisite for the arrest of a person concerned with the commission of a cognizable offence;
(e) nor does the recording of an F.I.R. mean that the S.H.O. or a police officer deputed by him was obliged to investigate the case or to go through the whole length of investigation of the case mentioned therein or that any accused person nominated therein must be arrested; and finally that,
(f) the check against lodging of false F.I.Rs was not refusal to record such F.I.Rs, but punishment of such informants under S.182, P.P.C. etc. which should be, if enforced, a fairly deterrent against misuse of the provisions of S.154, Cr.P.C.
76. In Haider Ali,24 the Supreme Court noted pervasive deficiencies in the criminal justice system: police routinely violated section 154 CrPC by refusing to register FIRs, investigations were often incompetent with arrests lacking evidence, and officers acted without proper training or guidelines. Prosecution suffered from poor coordination with police, absence of witness protection, frequent adjournments, and delayed case fixation, contributing to low conviction rates. Accountability and transparency were largely absent, with weak oversight and limited disciplinary action. Recognising that these failures undermined fundamental rights under Articles 9, 10, 10A, and
14 of the Constitution, the Court issued the following detailed directions:
24 Haider Ali v. DPO Chakwal (2015 SCMR 1724)
9. In some of our earlier orders, we have noted the high degree of political and administrative apathy which has translated into the failing criminal justice system before us. It must be emphasized that the failure to address individual grievances of citizens causes frustration amongst them which, in turn, may lead to lawlessness. It also needs to be emphasized that a functioning criminal justice system is directly linked to the enforcement and realization of various fundamental rights of citizens such as Articles 9, 10, 10A and 14. We can no longer stand idle as the nation suffers. It is therefore directed as under:--
(i) A universal access number (UAN) and website should be provided to the general public for filing of complaints. The said website should be developed and be operational within three months from the date of this order. Till such time that the website has been launched, the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. should be strictly adhered to and action should be taken against any police official who fails to abide by the said provision.
(ii) Serious notice should be taken of frivolous, false or vexatious complaints and where applicable cases should be registered under sections 182 and 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
(iii) The principles laid out in Muhammad Bashir's case (PLD 2007 SC 539) should be strictly followed and no person should be arrested unless there is sufficient evidence available with the police to support such arrest. Where a person is unjustly deprived of his liberty, compensation will be required to be paid to him or her by the delinquent police officer. The affected person may approach the civil courts for appropriate remedy in this regard.
(iv) Adequate provision should be made for the training of police officers and the development of specialized investigation officers and facilities. In addition adequate funds should be made available to police stations and for investigation activities. The respective Provincial and Federal heads of police shall submit a report in court within three months from the date of this order which details the steps taken in this regard and the relevant police funds and personnel dedicated towards investigation activities, training of police personal, and development of forensic facilities.
(v) No police officer is to be transferred in breach of the principles laid out by this Court in the Anita Turab case (PLD 2013 SC 195). The respective Provincial and Federal heads of police shall submit a report in Court within one month from the date of this order which specifies the names and details of all police officers above BPS-17 who have been transferred or made OSD over the past three years and also provide reasons for the same.
(vi) Guidelines/SOPs should be developed to foster coordination between the prosecution and the police. The Attorney General and the respective Advocates General of each province shall submit the said guidelines/SOPs in court within three months from the date of this order.
(vii) Adequate funds should be dedicated towards the training and development of public prosecutors. The Attorney General and the respective Prosecutors General of each province shall submit in Court within three months from the date of this order details of (i) hiring requirements and compensation packages of public prosecutors; and (ii) accountability mechanisms and review systems of public prosecutors.
(viii) The Attorney General and the respective Advocates General shall submit a report in court within one month from the date of this order on the steps being taken to provide witness protection in their relevant jurisdiction and the funds dedicated for this purpose.
(ix) The respective bar councils may take appropriate action against lawyers who deliberately seek adjournments with a view to delay trial. Respective district judges are also directed to impose costs on such lawyers and hear criminal cases involving the liberty of persons on a day to day basis to the extent possible.
(x) Respective heads of police of the Federation and the Provinces shall submit a report within one month of the date of this order which details the relevant police complaints and accountability mechanisms in place and the actions taken under such mechanism against delinquent police officials. This information shall also be made publicly accessible in English as well as Urdu on their respective websites. The Attorney General and respective Advocates General shall submit a report detailing compliance in this respect within one month from the date of this order.
(xi) Police budgets (disaggregated by district and local police stations, functions, human resource allocation and a statement of their utilization), police plans and annual performance reports shall be made publicly accessible on the respective Federal and Provincial police websites and submitted in Court within one month of the date of this order. The Attorney General and respective Advocates General shall submit a report detailing compliance in this respect within one month from the date of this order.
(xii) The Attorney General and the respective Advocates General of the Provinces of Sindh and Balochistan should submit in Court within one month from the date of this order reports which examine the constitutionality of the policing regime established by the Police Act, 1861, currently in force in Sindh and the Balochistan Police Act, 2011 currently in force in Balochistan. This report should inter alia state whether these policing statutes allow the constitution and organization of a politically independent police force which is consistent with the protection of the fundamental rights of citizens.
(xiii) The Federal and Provincial Ombudsmen should submit in Court within three months from the date of this order, good- administration standards for police stations and should also submit a report which outlines the measures being taken to curb maladministration in police stations.
(xiv) Provincial Information Commissioners should notify transparency standards relating to police services and functions and submit these standards in Court within three months from the date of this order.
(xv) The Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan shall prepare a consolidated report based on the various reports received by the Court till date and the proposals submitted by Khawaja Haris, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, detailing the relevant amendments which are required in legislation to improve the criminal justice system. The said report shall be submitted in court within three months from the date of this order. Copies of the said report shall also be sent to the National and Provincial Assemblies.
(Underlining is ours)
It is regrettable that these authoritative judgments have not yet been implemented, and the respondents are under an obligation to ensure their prompt and effective enforcement.
6. Investigation and its requirement
77. Jurisprudence establishes that criminal investigation proceeds through defined stages: recording information under section 154 CrPC, commencement under section 156, intimation to the Magistrate under section 157, maintenance of the case diary under section 172, and preparation of the final report under sections 169-173. Investigation, per section 4 CrPC, involves careful collection of oral, documentary, and physical evidence, forming the foundation of the criminal justice system. It is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer to ascertain when the offence was committed, including its date and time; the place of occurrence; in whose presence it occurred; and the manner of its commission. The Investigating Officer shall further determine the tool or weapon used, and whether the act was motivated or committed on the spur of the moment. Courts have repeatedly held that weak or defective investigation and unreliable evidence are major causes of acquittals. Investigating officers, empowered under sections 42-105, 156-175, 551 CrPC and Police Rules, may arrest, inspect, and search as per law, exercising discretion under section 169 with caution.25 Rule
22.1 designates the officer in charge of a police station as Chief Investigating Officer to assist investigations. Detailed procedure for investigation, including powers and functions of IOs, action at the scene of occurrence, and collection of evidence, is set out in Chapter XXV of the Police Rules, 1934. Every police officer, especially IOs, must fully understand and apply it. The Supreme Court in Qambar Ali Shah case26 emphasised that the quality and impartiality of investigation directly
25 PLD 2012 Peshawar 39.
26 Syed Qambar Ali Shah v. The Province of Sindh (2024 SCMR 1123)
affect trial outcomes, whereas biased or partisan investigation undermines justice. The relevant part is reproduced for reference.
7. At whatever time, an Officer Incharge of a Police Station receives some information about the commission of an offence, he is expected first to find out whether the offence disclosed fell into the category of cognizable offences or non-cognizable offences. There is no provision in any law, including Section 154 or 155 of the Cr.P.C., which authorizes an Officer Incharge of a Police Station to hold any enquiry to assess the correctness or falsity of the information before complying with the command of the said provisions. He is obligated to reduce the same into writing, notwithstanding the fact whether such information is true or otherwise. The condition precedent for recording an FIR is that it should convey the information of an offence and that too a cognizable one. The remedy of filing a direct complaint cannot measure or match up to the mechanism provided under section 154, Cr.P.C., in which the Officer Incharge of a Police Station is duty bound to record the statement and register the FIR if a cognizable offence is made out. If in each and every case it is presumed or assumed that instead of insisting or emphasizing the lodgment of an FIR, the party may file a direct complaint, then the purpose of recording an FIR, as envisaged under section 154, Cr.P.C., will become redundant and futile and it would be very easy for the police to refuse the registration of an FIR with the advice to file direct complaint. However, in some exceptional circumstances, the alternate remedy in the shape of direct complaint may be availed but not in every case. The statutory duty casts upon the officer of a police station to enter information regarding the cognizable offence first and then the investigation comes later in order to gather evidence and other relevant material to prosecute the identified culprits. No doubt, an Investigating Officer plays a crucial role in the administration of the criminal justice system and the constituent of investigation report and its worth keeps hold of plenteous value and repercussions on the outcome of any criminal case, but tainted investigations can become an acute obstacle in the administration of justice. In the case of Sughra Bibi v. State [PLD 2018 SC 595], it was held that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer is obliged to investigate the matter from all possible angles while keeping in view all the versions of the incident brought to his notice and as required by Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934. It is the duty of an Investigating Officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person. Whereas in the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujrat and others [(2010) 12 SCC 254], the Supreme Court of India held that
investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of the rule of law.
8. Investigative activities serve a multitude of purposes, therefore, it is also a duty of the Officer Incharge of Police Stations to ensure that the Investigating Officer follows the provisions of law conscientiously, without any breach, conducting an impartial and honest investigation with the sole aim of bringing the truth to light, which is the foundational pathway for the prosecution's case.
78. In the case of Yasir Khan,27 this Court comprehensively delineated the statutory stages of investigation under the CrPC, including the recording of information under section 154, commencement of investigation under sections 156 and 157, arrest within the limits prescribed by sections 54, 60 and 61, preparation of the final report under sections 169, 170 and 173, and the subsequent administrative inquiry conducted by the Magistrate or Sessions Court. The relevant part is reproduced for reference:-
7. In order to appreciate the powers of a police officer to investigate an offence and in that regard arrest and release of an accused for the commission of an offence, we may trace the different stages through which a police officer has to proceed in investigating an offence; from the time he is informed or gains knowledge about the commission of the offence till he concludes the investigation by submitting his final report/ challan. For relevancy and clarity of the present issue, we shall trace the various stages relating to cognizable offence, such as section 324 of P.P.C., which is the subject-matter of the present petition. The various stages, in general, are as follows:--
Stage-I: Information.
The S.H.O. of the Police Station under section 154 of Cr.P.C. has to reduce the information obtained or received regarding the commission of a cognizable offence into writing, which is known as the First Information Report ("F.I.R.").
Stage-II: Commencement of investigation.
As soon as the information of the cognizable offence is received by the S.H.O. of the Police Station and F.I.R. is registered, he is to proceed himself or to depute a subordinate police officer to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and, if necessary, to take measures for the recovery and arrest of offender. Sections 156 and 157 of Cr.P.C. clearly provide, in particular, the circumstances in which the police officer is to proceed, while each and every step taken by him in this regard is to be recorded in police 'diaries', as provided under section 172 of the Cr.P.C. and the enabling provisions of the Police Rules, 1934 ("Rules").
27 Yasir Khan v. Imtiaz (PLD 2013 Peshawar 46).
Stage-III: Arrest of an accused.
In order to investigate a criminal case, the S.H.O. of a Police Station under section 54 of the Cr.P.C, may arrest a person without warrants, inter alia, 'when a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned'. On arresting the accused, the police officer has to produce him before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, within twenty-four hours of his arrest. In case, the arrest is being made by an officer, who is not the officer-incharge of the Police Station, within whose jurisdiction the said offence had taken place, then the accused has to be produced before the concerned
S.H.O. of the Police Station. But under no circumstances, a person arrested without warrant can be kept beyond the period of twenty- four hours, without him being produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter, as is provided under sections 60 and 61 of the Cr.P.C. The only exception being, when the investigation in the case or the journey required time for producing the accused before the competent Magistrate cannot be completed within twenty four hours. Even in such cases, the accused has to be produced before a Magistrate, who has to grant time to the officer who has the custody of an accused, to produce him before the competent Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter, as is provided in section 167 of the Cr.P.C.
In cases, where the investigation cannot be concluded within twenty-four hours of the arrest of an accused, the officer investigating the case has to seek permission of a Magistrate for the police remand of the accused for a specified period. This period in ordinary criminal cases cannot be beyond a term exceeding fifteen days, as a whole. Surely, while granting physical remand/custody of the accused to the police, the Magistrate has to give reasons for the same. The procedure in this regard has been clearly provided in section 167 of Cr.P.C.
Stage-IV: Investigation.
'Investigation' is the sole prerogative of the police, and as is provided under section 4(1) of Cr.P.C, it entails all steps taken by a police officer for collection of evidence, in connection with the commission of an offence. After concluding the investigation, the police officer has to record his final opinion/report/challan regarding the facts leading to the commission of the offence, 'inter alia' the involvement of each accused in the commission thereof and also produce before the Magistrate the recoveries made during the investigation, as is provided under sections 173 and 170 of Cr.P.C, respectively. In case, the investigating officer concludes that a criminal case is made out and the person accused is involved in the commission of an offence, he is to submit 'challan' before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence or to send the same for trial to the Sessions. There is no issue regarding the said situation. Whereas, on the other hand, if the police officer concludes otherwise, he is to proceed as is provided under section 169 of Cr.P.C, which states as follows:--
" .if it appears to the officer incharge of the police station, or to the police officer, who investigates the case that there is insufficient evidence or reasonable ground or suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without
sureties, or the said officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or send him for trial." (emphasis provided)
The purport of the aforementioned section is essentially to render the police officer, the authority to release an accused, if he considers that no case is made out against him, on his furnishing a bond, with or without sureties, with direction to the released accused to appear as and when he is summoned to appear before the competent Magistrate. Once he is summoned and appears before the competent magistrate, the 'life' of the personal bond executed by the accused would 'end' and the same shall be subject to the further orders of the said magistrate, as is provided under subsection (3) of section 173 of Cr.P.C, which reads that:--
"whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit."
Stage-V: Cognizance of offence.
Once the 'challan' of a case is put before the magistrate, he is required to conduct an enquiry, without recording of evidence, by reviewing the evidence collected by the police officer, during the investigation of the offence and thereafter form an opinion to either discharge the bond and sureties as opined by the police or to proceed against the released accused, if 'prima facie' a triable case is made out. In both the situations, the magistrate has to pass an order in writing qua the bond and sureties furnished by the accused and the fate of the case. In case the 'challan' of a case triable by the Sessions is put before a Magistrate, who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence itself, he would under subsection (3) of section 190 of Cr.P.C, refer the same to the Sessions. In case, the police and even the referring magistrate have opined for the cancellation of the case, the Sessions, after taking cognizance of the case under section 193 of the Cr.P.C, would have the authority to carry out another 'enquiry', without recording of evidence, by reviewing the evidence collected by the police and pass an order in writing qua the bond and sureties furnished by the accused and the fate of the case. This authority of the Sessions to again enter into another 'enquiry' has been clearly validated by the apex Court in Muhammad Ramzan's case (PLD 2010 SC 585). Thus, the Sessions would be competent to order the trial of a person for an offence, even if there is a negative opinion of both the police and the referring magistrate. It would be pertinent to note that the apex Court in Mehr Khan's Case (1984 SCMR 267) has gone to the extent and to have termed the said 'enquiry' to be carried out by both the magistrate and/or the Sessions to be an 'enquiry' as provided under sections 4(k) of the Cr.P.C. The rationale behind all this is to ensure that there should be 'checks and balances' upon the above authority of the police and also for the decision of the magistrate to be purposeful and not mechanical. Moreover, the aforementioned 'enquiry' carried out by the magistrate and the decision so rendered thereafter regarding the discharge of bonds or the fate of the case are 'administrative' orders and not 'judicial' in nature, as recently held by the august Supreme Court, in Sher Muhammad Unar's Case (PLD 2012 SC 179).
"The finding of guilt or innocence by the police at the investigation stage is not a finding in trial culminating in conviction or acquittal and therefore the principle of double jeopardy cannot be invoked by the petitioners. Even if when an accused is discharged by the Magistrate/trial Court, the consequence would be that he is discharged from his bond at a stage when his custody is no longer required by the investigating agency. But such an order is only an executive order passed at the investigating stage when the case has yet to go for trial. Nevertheless, the Court can still try him if some fresh material is brought before it. Petitioners were not even discharged by the trial. The order of discharge based on police report cannot be equated with acquittal. The Court is not bound by such a finding of innocence reflected in the final report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. and it can still summon the accused." (Emphasis provided)
79. Undoubtedly, investigation is a specialized function which requires a distinct cadre, specialized training and complete independence. An investigating officer cannot assume the role of complainant or witness. Superior courts have repeatedly held, with reference to Article 18 of the Police Order 2002, Rule 25.2(3)28 of the Police Rules 1934 and section 26(1)29 of the Police Act 2017, that the complainant and the investigating officer must not be the same person. In the case of Agha Qais case,30 the Lahore High Court held in below words:-
Role of an Investigating Officer is of a neutral authority whose object is to unearth the truth. The Investigating Officer cannot be a part or a member of a party in a case which he is investigating. In this regard, guidance may be sought from Chapter 25 of Investigation from Police Rules, 1934. Rule 25.2(3) reads as under:- "It is the duty of an Investigating Officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person."
The language of Rule 25.2 above noted clearly requires of an Investigating Officer not to commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person. This cannot be expected from an Investigating Officer who himself is a party. As a matter of fact, concept of honest investigation is based on non-partisanship and
28 It is the duty of an Investigating Officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person.
29 There shall be separation of investigation from other functions of the police at police station level.
30 Agha Qais v. The State (2009 P Cr. L J 1334).
neutrality. The reason and spirit of separating investigation wing from the operation wing of police also emanates from the same fact which reflects in Article 18 of the Police Order, 2002, therefore, we feel that element of honest, transparent and fair investigation lacks in the instant case. The same point has been discussed by the learned Sindh High Court reported in Nazir Ahmad v. The State PLD 2009 Kar. 191. The Honourable Supreme Court has analyzed the above point from another angle also. According to the Honourable Supreme Court, Investigating Officer is an important witness for the defence also and in case he acts as a complainant and raiding officer, the defence is deprived of his very precious right at the same time and is forced not to depend upon the same. The Federal Shariat Court also observed that such an investigation is biased investigation. (Ashiq alias Kaloo v. State 1989 PCr.LJ 601). In State v. Bashir and others 1998 PLD SC 408, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that "as observed above, Investigating Officer is as important witness for the defence also and in case the head of the police party also becomes the Investigating Officer, he may not be able to discharge his duties as required of him under the Police Rules".
80. In Bashir,31 the Supreme Court examined the dual role of a police officer as both complainant and investigator, holding that while not absolutely barred, such dual functions are undesirable and risk prejudice to the accused. Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules 1934 requires the investigating officer to remain impartial and avoid premature conclusions. The Court emphasised that the investigating officer is a material witness for both the prosecution and the defence. If the same person acts as the raiding officer, eyewitness, complainant, and investigator, it undermines neutrality and the presumption of an independent investigation, thereby affecting the right to fair trial under Article 10A. Evidence of police witnesses remains admissible but must be scrutinised, particularly where recoveries are made without compliance with section 103 CrPC. Courts have noted that assigning investigation to raiding or eyewitness officers compromises FIR credibility and has led to acquittals. Under section 26(1) of the Police Act 2017, investigation is currently separated from operations only at police station level, while operational command persists. In line with Rule 25.2(3), the principles of natural justice, and the right to fair trial, investigation must be fully separated from operational command up to
31 The State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 408).
the level of AIG Investigation, with postings, transfers, PERs/ACRs, and disciplinary matters managed solely within it, and with full financial autonomy.
7. Defective and Poor Investigation
81. The material before the Court demonstrates that non-observance of mandatory CrPC provisions and rules by investigating officers has led to acquittal of real offenders and false implication of innocents, violating constitutional rights, eroding public confidence, and reflecting systemic deficiencies highlighted in Mehboob Hassan case.32 Investigations are often conducted in disregard of binding precedents, compounded by incompetence, lack of resources, poor coordination, insufficient training, and absence of accountability. To address this at district level, the Criminal Justice Coordination Committee may organise structured training for Moharirs, Investigating Officers, SHOs, and medical officers, led by Senior Civil Judges, Magistrates, Deputy Prosecutors, research officers, and senior criminal lawyers, with feedback shared with the Provincial Justice Committee to address practical field challenges. Statutory provisions must also be enforced: Sections 166(1), 166(2), 186(2), 167, and 218 PPC criminalise negligent or defective investigation and obstruction of prosecution; Sections 191-200, 209 PPC, read with Section 476 CrPC, penalise false evidence, forged documents, or misleading the court. Protection under Section 126 KP Police Act 2017 applies only where law is strictly followed; deviation negates good faith. This Court is cognizant of the fact that the police in the province are confronting terrorism perpetrated by powerful non-state actors and, in this regard, the police force has rendered significant sacrifices which are duly acknowledged and respected. However, notwithstanding these harsh realities and the formidable challenges posed by such actors, the importance of a proper
32 Mehboob Hassan v. Akhtar Islam (2024 SCMR 757).
and effective investigation cannot be overlooked. Strengthening the investigative process is essential to bring the perpetrators to justice, thereby securing society and safeguarding the police force itself. Therefore, separating investigation from the operational branch at all levels, establishing structured training facilities at the level of CJCC and at the KP Judicial Academy, the Prosecution Academy, and police training academies33 to develop an informed understanding of the perspectives of the judiciary, prosecution, and police, ensuring adequate resources, and enforcing effective accountability at both the judicial and departmental levels will substantially improve the quality of investigations.
82. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Saddam Hussain case34 directed that "A handbook of the crime investigation, based upon previous experiences, illustrations, practical applications and case-law developed by the superior Courts of Pakistan should be prepared immediately with knowledge of using of investigation kits and preparing a computerized data of the crime. Such handbook of investigation should be immediately prepared but not later than 6 months from today, and it should be made available to each of the investigation officers, who are responsible for investigating the crime. The handbook on investigation shall be updated every year and new experiences shall be added along with latest case-law given by the superior Courts. New investigation tools shall be added in every new edition, to be issued every year on 1st of July." In compliance with the said direction, a comprehensive handbook on criminal investigation in
33 Police Training College, Hangu, Police Training School Shakas District Khyber, Police Training School Kohat, Police Training School Swabi, Police Training School Swat, Police Training School Buner, Police Training School Mansehra, Police Training School Shakas D.I.Khan, Police School of Investigation Meera Kachorri Peshawar, Police School of Intelligence Abbottabad, Police School of Explosive Handling Nowshera, Police School of Public Disorder and Riot Management Mardan, Police School of Tactics Hakeem Abad Nowshera, Police School of IT Shakas District Khyber, Police School of Traffic and Telecommunication Kohat, Elite Police Training Center Nowshera.
34 Saddam Hussain v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 310).
Pakistan has been prepared by the National Police Bureau in collaboration with the Ministry of Interior. However, it is in the English language. Therefore, the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights, together with the Director General, Prosecution Department, are directed to translate the handbook into Urdu within three months and circulate it among all prosecutors, investigating officers, and station house officers ("SHOs") across the province. It shall also be shared with all academies providing training to prosecutors, police, and other law enforcement agencies, and shall be updated annually. Similarly, the superior courts have, in numerous judgments,35 highlighted the investigative procedure, particularly in narcotics cases, which shall be known, understood, and followed by all investigating officers.
8. Case Property, Its Disposal and Misuse
83. Case property means any item linked to a criminal case, whether it supports the prosecution or the defence. It may be the tool used in the offence, such as a weapon, or any item that can help prove a fact. It is usually a physical object, such as a vehicle, narcotics, or arms, etc. Complaints often arise about misuse of such property, especially seized narcotics and vehicles, which shows the need for a clear and effective system for safe handling and custody. As far as narcotics are concerned, the second and third provisos to section 516A CrPC provide a workable framework. This section empowers the Court to make orders for interim custody, disposal, or sale of perishable property while in cases involving dangerous drugs, intoxicants, intoxicating liquor, or any other narcotic substance, the Court shall ensure preparation of representative samples and destruction of the remaining quantity under
35 2025 SCMR 923, 2024 SCMR 1408, 2024 SCMR 1571, 2024 SCMR 934, 2023 SCMR
1144, 2023 SCMR 986, 2022 SCMR 1006, 2022 SCMR 1422, 2021 SCMR 451, PLD 2020
SC 57, 2019 SCMR 930, 2019 SCMR 2004, 2019 SCMR 608, PLD 2019 SC 669, 2019
SCMR 1300, 2018 SCMR 2039, 2015 SCMR 1002, 2012 SCMR 577, 2024 Pcr. LJ 652
Pesh.
its supervision, supported by a certificate detailing the case property, after due notice to the accused and the prosecution, so as to prevent misuse or tampering. In Ahmed Ali,36 the Supreme Court held that non- production of narcotics without explanation undermines the prosecution, emphasizing safe custody, timely dispatch, and exhibition of samples and magistrate certificates. In Gul Alam,37 it has been held that destruction was lawful where samples were preserved and exhibited, with proper documentation. Similarly, Ali Muhammad case38 affirmed that the accused has the right to examine recovered narcotics unless destruction with notice and sampling is duly ordered. In Rehmat Gul case,39 it was held that destruction in the presence of the accused does not prejudice the defence. In Muhammad Fayaz,40 the court rejected photocopies of destruction certificates produced after a delay, holding that failure to provide notice and original evidence renders the prosecution case doubtful, invoking the presumption under Article 129(g) QSO. In view of the above judgments, and keeping in perspective the second and third provisos to section 516A CrPc, all Judicial Magistrates shall, in every narcotics case, either on application or suo motu and under Court supervision, draw such number of representative samples from the seized substance as deemed fit, in the presence of the Prosecutor, the investigating officer, and the accused, for safe custody and production before the trial Court or the appellate Court, as the case may be, and may order destruction of the remaining quantity forthwith, or as soon as practicable, and thereafter issue a certificate certifying such destruction. The samples so drawn shall be deemed to be the whole of the property for purposes of inquiry and trial. Similarly, with regard to remaining case properties in the form of vehicles, it is observed that the Criminal Justice Coordination
36 Ahmed Ali v. The State. (2023 SCMR 781)
37 Gul Alam v. The State (2011 SCMR 624).
38 Ali Muhammad v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 623).
39 Rehmat Gul v. The State (2022 P Cr LJ 10).
40 Muhammad Fayaz v. The State (PLD 2017 Peshawar 74).
Committee shall supervise the custody and management of such properties, maintain a complete and up to date record of all seized vehicles and regularly share a consolidated list thereof with the Chairperson, of CJCC, for information and necessary action. To regulate further the matters of case property, an independent district Malkhana, insulated from police and prosecution control, shall be established. After custody proceedings, all case property shall be deposited there under the supervision of the District and Sessions Judge, who may nominate a Judicial Officer to manage it. The Provincial Government shall establish it forthwith in judicial complexes where possible, otherwise in suitable nearby premises. Keeping in view the scenario before us, and to ensure beneficial use of seized vehicles and to prevent damage from prolonged parking, a mechanism may be devised whereby vehicles seized as case property, in cases where Superdari applications have been dismissed by courts, are handed over on Superdari to the Government or law enforcement agencies until the conclusion of the trial, subject to their production before the court as and when required with intimation to the chairperson of the CJCC.
84. It is also clarified that unauthorized or negligent personal use of case property, which belongs to pending criminal cases, violates legal and ethical standards and constitutes criminal breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation under sections 403 and 409 PPC, rendering the responsible individuals liable for legal action and accountability.
9. Significance of Medical Professionals in Justice Delivery
85. In the criminal justice system, the role of medical professionals is fundamental, particularly in cases involving hurt or physical harm. The claim of a victim often requires confirmatory and corroborative medical support in addition to other oral or documentary evidence, which makes the role of medical officers pivotal. It has been observed
that, in many criminal cases, doctors are reluctant to examine victims due to the apprehension that they may later be required to appear before the Court, face cross examination, and spend time away from their regular duties. It has also been noticed that medical officers frequently omit essential information at the time of examination, such as the name, parentage, age, and address of the victim, the identity of the person who brought the victim, details of accompanying persons, the date and time of examination, and particulars of the treatment administered. Final medical reports are often not provided to the investigation officer ("IO") promptly and are submitted with considerable delay. Furthermore, hospitals generally do not maintain proper records relating to the arrival of victims, their examination, treatment, and other relevant particulars for future reference. Only the initial entry in the emergency register is available, while other important details remain unrecorded. Issues relating to medical negligence and criminal negligence are also overlooked. It has further been observed that when courts order pre and post custody medical examinations of accused persons, these are not conducted properly. The law requires that such examinations be carried out thoroughly, in the absence of police officials, the IO, or any other persons, and that proper reports be prepared on both occasions. This requirement is essential because accused persons frequently allege torture or maltreatment during custody, yet such claims cannot be assessed in the absence of proper medical documentation. It is clarified that doctors, when providing medical treatment in such cases, perform two distinct but equally important duties: one is the professional duty of treating the victim, and the other is assisting the State in the administration of justice, which is a duty of utmost nobility. By preparing proper reports, recording all essential information, and submitting reports in a timely manner, medical officers significantly contribute to the administration of justice. Time spent by medical professionals in recording statements before the
Court constitutes official duty performed for the State and in aid of justice. However, it has been noticed that medical officers often do not prepare their reports on the prescribed formats or fail to complete all required fields. This constitutes a violation of duty and amounts to incompetence. Similarly, the issue of non-submission of medical reports can be addressed by invoking Sections 175/186(2) of the PPC when such non-submission is deliberate and without reasonable cause.
86. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Injured Persons and Emergency Medical Aid Act 2014 mandates that every injured person receive immediate medical treatment without delay, giving priority over medico-legal formalities. Police may not interfere except with written hospital permission and only when necessary for investigation. Doctors may provide emergency care without waiting for relatives' consent. Transfers require complete records and accompaniment by a doctor. Injured persons cannot be taken to police stations before essential treatment, and those bringing them must not be harassed. Hospitals must have trained staff, provide free initial care, and participate in awareness campaigns. Violations attract imprisonment, fines, and compensation to victims, with cognizance exclusively by a Judicial Magistrate First Class. Both doctors and police are liable for disciplinary action for non-compliance.
87. Admittedly, medico legal officers are required to prepare their reports with due care and diligence. However, minor discrepancies may be disregarded where the remaining evidence, particularly the ocular account, is found to be trustworthy and confidence inspiring. The three member Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Aqil41 affirmed this principle in the following terms:-
41 Aqil Vs The State (2023 SCMR 831)
It is settled law that where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over medical evidence and the same alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Iqbal v. The State (1996 SCMR 908), Naeem Akhtar v. The State (PLD 2003 SC 396), Faisal Mehmood v. The State (2010 SCMR 1025) and Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (2011 SCMR 460). It is settled principle of law that the value and status of medical evidence and recovery is always corroborative in its nature, which alone is not sufficient to sustain the conviction. Minor discrepancies and conflicts appearing in medical evidence and the ocular version are quite possible for variety of reasons. During occurrence witnesses in a momentary glance make only tentative assessment of the distance between the deceased and the assailant and the points where accused caused injuries. It becomes highly improbable to correctly mention the number and location of the injuries with exactitude. Minor discrepancies, if any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do not negate the direct evidence. During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel contended that there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the eye- witnesses but on our specific query he could not point out any major contradiction, which could shatter the case of the prosecution. We may point out that 'discrepancy' has to be distinguished from 'contradiction'. Contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the prosecution case whereas minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution case doubtful. It is normal course of the human conduct that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies. Parrot-like statements are always discredited by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounts to contradiction, regard is required to be made to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witnesses were making the statement. There are always normal discrepancies, howsoever, honest and truthful a witness may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, memory due to lapse of time and mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person.
To ensure proper sensitisation of medical officers regarding the preparation of medico-legal reports, their timely submission, and their obligation to appear as witnesses, it is necessary that they receive appropriate training. The District Criminal Justice Coordination Committee may arrange training sessions at the district level to ensure
strict and effective compliance with these legal requirements, while the Secretary Health, in consultation with the Director General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Academy, may arrange such trainings at the provincial level. Moreover, it is directed that the Secretary Health shall ensure the availability of medico-legal officers at all government- owned health facilities immediately, or, in the alternative, shall ensure that the medical officers already posted are duly trained to handle medico-legal matters.
10. Forensic Science and Evidentiary Value of Experts
88. The CrPC and the QSO provides for the centrality of forensic science and expert input in criminal justice. Sections 164A and 164B provide for medical examination and DNA profiling, while section 174 allows post-mortem and medical opinions during inquest. Depositions of civil surgeons and medical witnesses are admissible under section 509, and reports of chemical examiners, serologists, fingerprint and firearm experts are admissible without formal proof under section 510, subject to the Court summoning the expert if required. The QSO recognises expert opinions in science, foreign law, handwriting, bomb disposal, and information systems (Articles 59-60) and regulates documentary, electronic, and technical evidence (Articles 46A, 72- 101, 164, 78A). Given that offences often occur without eyewitnesses, prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, which, if trustworthy, coherent, and forming a complete chain, is as probative as ocular testimony42. Such evidence must be scientifically verified and corroborated through forensic examination and expert opinion. Modern forensic laboratories and qualified experts are therefore essential to ensure that circumstantial material is accurately analysed, properly interpreted, and presented in accordance with the standards of criminal justice. It is recommended that section 510, CrPC be amended to
42 2025 SCMR 1399
include DNA experts and cybercrime/digital forensics experts, including IT/AI specialists appointed or notified by the Government, so that their reports may be admissible without personal appearance, subject to the discretion of court to summon them in the interest of justice.
89. The Locard principle43 establishes that every offence leaves behind traces, making collection and expert examination of material essential for proving crimes. Forensic laboratories provide scientific testing, verification, and analysis, and their expert opinions support or refute prosecution claims. Independent, fully equipped forensic facilities are therefore indispensable for fair justice, especially as scientific and circumstantial evidence gains prominence. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, existing forensic facilities lack independence, suffer delays, face complaints of tampering, and are less capable than the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. Although the Government has initiated the establishment of a modern, independent forensic laboratory in Peshawar, progress remains slow. Reports indicate substantial funds have been released under ADP schemes totaling over Rs 1.4 billion, with partial expenditures already made. The FSL's workload has risen sharply from 2,384 cases in 1978 to 83,687 in 2024, without proportional human resource expansion, straining capacity and delaying justice. It is directed that work on the proposed independent FSL project be expedited and the requisite funds be released without delay. In the meantime, the staff shortage in the existing FSL shall be addressed through fresh recruitments, so as to ensure that the criminal justice system becomes fully functional at the earliest. It is also directed that the Government shall ensure the establishment of permanent satellite forensic laboratories at each divisional headquarters in near
43 Dr. Edmond Locard, a French criminologist often called the "Sherlock Holmes of France," who was one of the first to demonstrate that no crime scene is ever truly "clean".
future to provide nearby FSL facilities and reduce delays in investigation.
90. Deliberate or unreasonable non-submission of medical or FSL reports constitutes an offence under Sections 175/186(2) PPC, enabling legal action against responsible individuals. The Criminal Justice Coordination Committee may establish a mechanism to ensure timely submission of such reports, reducing delays and enhancing the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Under section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forensic Science Agency Act, 2020, any expert or official who knowingly or negligently provides false or misleading opinions is liable to up to seven years' imprisonment or a fine of one million rupees. The offence is triable by a Court of Session on a written complaint from the Director General or a Home Department nominee, with appeal to the High Court within thirty days.
11. Role and Responsibilities of the Prosecution
91. The prosecution is a vital pillar of the criminal justice system, and failure to perform its statutory role leads to delay, defective investigation, frivolous litigation, and erosion of public confidence. The word "prosecute" is derived from a Latin word and signifies not only "to follow," but "to follow intensively" without intermission; thus, it means to follow or pursue with a view to reaching, executing, or accomplishing an objective. According to Webster's New International Dictionary (Second Edition), "prosecution" means, inter alia, "the process of exhibiting formal charges against an offender before a legal tribunal, and pursuing them to final judgment on behalf of the State or Government, as by indictment or information." In the Oxford English Dictionary, "prosecution" means "the following up, continuing, or carrying out of any action, scheme, or purpose, with a view to its accomplishment or attainment.44 Under section 3 of the KP Prosecution
44 Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah Vs Abdul Baseer (PLD 1978 Supreme Court 121)
Act45, prosecution is required to function proactively, independently, and based on evidence, rather than merely forwarding police reports. Sections 4, 5, and 8 mandate District Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors to supervise investigations, scrutinise FIRs, guide Investigating Officers, and ensure only lawful, admissible cases proceed to trial. The Amendment Act of 2025 further empowers prosecutors to withhold prosecution in compoundable offences or seek discharge where proceedings are mala fide, weak, or wrongful, thereby filtering out frivolous and unsustainable cases. Police officers who disregard prosecutorial directions commit misconduct under section
118 of the Police Act, 2017, as such directions ensure that investigations follow legal guidance. Structured training, performance evaluation, and regular rotation of prosecutors are essential to maintain neutrality and institutional integrity. When courts and prosecution fulfil their roles, delays are reduced, defective investigations corrected, and the rights of accused and victims safeguarded. The Prosecution Service (Constitution, Function and Powers) Rules 2012 further prescribe supervision, scrutiny of investigations, maintenance of registers, timely submission of challans, liaison with police and Director General Prosecution, monitoring of appeals, and overall coordination to strengthen investigation and prosecution. Collectively, these provisions underscore the prosecution's duty to guide investigations, ensure timely submission of challans, and diligently pursue cases in accordance with law.
92. In Syed Maqbool Shah,46 the Supreme Court highlighted serious failures of the Prosecution, noting habitual non-production of witnesses, delays in submitting challans beyond the statutory period under section 173 CrPC, and prosecutorial indifference, which resulted in protracted trials and denial of justice. The Court emphasised that
45 The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2005.
46 2021 YLR 1517 Peshawar.
Public Prosecutors, appointed under section 492 CrPC and the Prosecution Act, are responsible for evaluating evidence, supervising investigations, producing witnesses, guiding Investigating Officers, and acting fairly toward the court, police, and accused. Despite their extensive statutory powers under sections 4 to 7 of the Act, including issuing police guidelines and seeking disciplinary action against negligent officers, no action had been taken against delinquent prosecutors or witnesses. Similarly, in Gul Rehman,47 the Court condemned repeated violations of section 173 CrPC due to persistent neglect by police and prosecution, causing stalled trials, prolonged incarceration, and misallocation of judicial resources. It directed high- level coordination among the Chief Secretary, Provincial Police Officer, Director Public Prosecution, Secretary Home, and Advocate General to resolve the problem of delayed challans. In Amjid Khan,48 unjustified delays in submitting investigation reports were held to infringe Article 10A (right to fair trial), and the Supreme Court rejected the notion that submission to the Public Prosecutor alone sufficed; reports must reach the Magistrate or Court. In the case of Adnan Prince,49 the Supreme Court reaffirmed that delays in submitting charge sheets, challans, and interim challans obstruct speedy trials, exacerbate witness unavailability, and perpetuate criminal case backlogs, reflecting systemic failure despite separate preventive, detective, investigative, and prosecution wings. The Court stressed the need for structured training of prosecutors in essential skills, immediate prosecutorial oversight from FIR registration to challan submission, and proactive guidance to Investigating Officers. It also highlighted weak coordination between police and prosecution, long postings of prosecutors at single stations (some exceeding a decade), and frequent absence from court proceedings, all undermining justice and
47 Gul Rehman v. The State (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 795).
48 Amjid Khan v. The State (2021 SCMR 1458).
49 Adnan Prince v. The State (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 147).
compelling victims to hire private counsel. Accountability is critical: failure to perform statutory duties, including delay in challan submission, may attract penal consequences under sections 166(1),50 17551 and 186(2)52 PPC, as well as disciplinary proceedings under the relevant Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Legal indemnities are conditional on adherence to prescribed procedures; deviations negate good faith. The Government is obliged to provide adequate office space, facilities, and resources, regulate postings (not exceeding three years at one station), and implement feedback mechanisms from courts to ensure effective prosecution and timely, fair trials. Moreover, the practice of retaining case files/challans by prosecutors for a prolonged period shall be stopped forthwith. Any opinion or scrutiny, whenever required, shall be completed immediately.
93. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the Magistrate on Duty, popularly known as MOD, performs round the clock duty. After court hours, the judicial officer assigned MOD duty remains available at the station and performs duty, when required, from his residence. However, the Prosecutors are not available round the clock, neither to assist the Investigating Officers nor to appear before the MOD, where required. In particular, on gazetted holidays, when the MOD is on duty, no Public Prosecutor is available. Therefore, the
50 166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person. (1) Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
51 175. Omission to produce document to public servant by person. Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one thousand five hundred rupees, or with both; legally bound to produce it. or, if the document is to be produced or delivered up to a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both.
52 186(2). Whoever intentionally hampers, misleads, jeopardizes or defeats an investigation, inquiry or prosecution or issues a false or defective report in a case under any law for the time being in force shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
Director General Prosecution shall, in consultation with the concerned District Public Prosecutors, ensure the availability of Public Prosecutors round the clock, particularly on gazetted holidays.
12. Role of Legal Practitioners in the Criminal Justice System
94. Lawyers occupy a pivotal position in the criminal justice system, serving as both the guardians of the rule of law and the advocates of individual rights. It is the lawyer who educates the rights holder to approach the proper forum for redressal, assists in articulating grievances in legal terms, pursues legal and constitutional remedies, and aids the courts in the dispensation of justice, thereby contributing to a society where everyone receives what is due; a competent, active, and professional Bar, in turn, strengthens a proactive and assertive judiciary. Defence counsel, in particular, ensure that accused persons are informed of the charges against them, provided timely access to legal aid, and advised of their fundamental rights under Articles 10, 10- A, and 14 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. By representing their clients at every stage of the criminal process: from investigation to bail, trial, and appeal, lawyers uphold due process, safeguard individual liberty, and maintain the dignity of all parties involved. Their active and ethical participation is essential to maintaining the delicate balance between state authority and individual rights; without it, the administration of justice risks devolving into arbitrariness, undermining public confidence and the very foundations of the rule of law. A competent, diligent and ethical Bar is an indispensable component of our judicial system. Nevertheless, this system cannot function properly if Members of the Bar do not adhere to the code of conduct prescribed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973.53
53 Salamat Ali Alias Channa Vs The State (2014 SCMR 747)
95. It has been brought to the notice of this Court, and has also become a matter of wide public prominence, that in the recent past certain practices have developed within segments of the legal community, including strikes and boycotts; locking courtrooms; obstructing advocates from representing an accused alleged to be involved in an offence against another advocate; preventing the entry of police officials and other citizens into courts and court premises; misbehaving with judicial officers who do not pass orders of their choice; pressuring courts to grant adjournments at their discretion; filing false and frivolous complaints and seeking transfer of cases on unfounded grounds or for delay; occupying court premises without any legal entitlement; and otherwise creating impediments to the smooth administration of justice. Instances where lawyers obstruct access to courts or interfere with the lawful execution of court-related duties, such as the presentation of notices, production of prisoners, or participation of police officers in court proceedings, constitute serious hindrances to the administration of justice. We hold in unequivocal terms that the premises of courts, being part of the judicial establishment, remain under the exclusive control of the judiciary; no Bar Council, Bar Association, or individual advocate possesses statutory authority to restrict entry or obstruct the work of police or litigants, as the same is offence under sections 339 and 341 of PPC. Such interference violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 10A, 15, and 25 of the Constitution, and undermines the efficiency and impartiality of judicial proceedings. The judicial premises are public institutions meant for the dispensation of justice, and no person or association other than the judiciary itself, acting under law, can regulate entry into them. The exercise of coercive authority by a body of lawyers to prevent entry or restrict movement within the precincts of a court not only violates constitutional guarantees but also attracts penal consequences under the PPC. Accordingly, it is held that
any restriction or prevention of entry into courts or katchery premises by any Bar Council or Bar Association amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 10A, 15, and 25 of the Constitution, and such action also constitutes the offence of unlawful restraint. It is the duty of the executive to establish premises for courts but there is no commitment of the State with an enrolled Advocate to provide a 'private chamber'.54 Therefore, it is clarified that the premises of all courts (katchery) belong to the State and are held and administered by the judiciary on behalf of the public. When the Government decides to establish courts in any district, it acquires land through public funds and constructs the court buildings from the national or provincial exchequer. Upon completion, possession of the land and buildings is formally handed over to the judiciary, which assumes full control, supervision, and management of the premises. Within the court premises, certain facilities such as bar rooms, litigation sheds, washrooms or rest areas are provided to members of the legal fraternity as a matter of convenience and professional necessity, enabling them to discharge their functions effectively. However, the allotment or provision of such space does not confer any proprietary or ownership rights upon the lawyers, Bar Councils, or Bar Associations. These spaces remain under the administrative control and ownership of the respective judiciary namely, the Peshawar High Court or the concerned District Judiciary, as the case may be. Accordingly, no Bar Council or Bar Association, nor any individual advocate, can claim ownership or tenancy rights over the court premises or any portion thereof. Any construction or occupation of space within the court premises beyond the area lawfully allotted, such as the bar room, is without legal sanction. Moreover, if court premises are rented out by Bar Councils or Bar Associations and they receive rent, profit, or any other consideration, such arrangement is not legally permissible. The
54 PLD 2021 Islamabad 169
judiciary, being the lawful custodian of the premises, is fully competent to regulate their use, recover rent where appropriate, and remove any unauthorized occupation or structure. Hence, it is held that the courts and their premises remain the property and under the exclusive possession of the judiciary, and the presence of lawyers or bar facilities within such precincts does not in any manner diminish or alter the ownership or administrative authority of the concerned judiciary.
96. Courts have consistently emphasized that the exercise of professional privileges must not obstruct access to justice, as reflected in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in Shahbaz Akmal,55 Abdul Ghafoor,56 and Ghulam Rasool,57 and High Courts in Ali Azim Afridi,58 Mst Shahnaz Butt,59 Capital Development Authority,60 Liaqat Ullah Khan,61 and Kaura Khan62 which hold that lawyers are bound to respect both the statutory framework and the ethical obligations of their profession while ensuring that procedural and substantive rights of the accused and other parties are not compromised. As observed by this Court in Shabir Khan case,63 any action or directive that impedes an advocate from representing a litigant constitutes a violation of Article 10-A and strikes directly at the independence of the legal profession, compromising the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. Similarly, this court in a recent judgment further clarified that any strike notices or directives issued by a Bar Association, calling upon advocates to abstain from appearing in courts, are without legal authority, constitutionally impermissible, and void of any binding force. Strikes or boycotts by lawyers, which obstruct access to courts,
55 Shahbaz Akmal v. The State (2023 SCMR 421).
56 Abdul Ghafoor v. The State (2011 S C M R 23)
57 Ghulam Rasool Shah v. The State (2011 SCMR 735).
58 Ali Azeem Arfidi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2023 Pesh 145).
59 Mst Shahnaz Butt v. Islamabad Bar Association (PLD 2021 Islamabad 169).
60 2020 CLC 1219 Islamabad.
61 PLD 2015 Peshawar 115.
62 Kaura Khan v. The State (2023 MLD 1260).
63 Shabir Khan v. State (2025 PHC 4836).
violate professional ethics and cannot be condoned under any circumstances64.Thus, courts are not bound to adjourn proceedings on the ground of strike particularly when evidence is available before the court.65 Legal practice is subservient to law, and courts are duty bound to proceed with cases to protect the rights of litigants to justice and a speedy trial. The court may compel the participation of defence counsel and effectively curtail adjournments by invoking its criminal, disciplinary and procedural powers under the law. A counsel who intentionally absents himself despite specific directions may be proceeded against under sections 174 and 186(2) PPC, and his conduct may be reported to the Bar Council for violation of Rule 166, which constitutes misconduct under Rule 175A of the Bar Council Rules, attracting action under section 41 and 54 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973.
97. The question arises whether the Pakistan Bar Council, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council, or any Bar Association possesses any statutory power to call for a strike; the answer is in the negative. Under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, no express power to call for strike is conferred upon the Pakistan Bar Council, any Provincial Bar Council, or any Bar Association. The only reference is Rule 175E of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, which provides that no Bar Association, bar body or forum shall give a strike or protest call at the national level without prior approval of the Pakistan Bar Council, from which an implied latitude for provincial level calls may be inferred. However, the parent statute is the Act, 197366, and it is settled that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond, enlarge, or deviate from the Act; rules exist only to implement the statute and derive validity solely from its provisions. The Khyber
64 Shabbir Hussain v. Pakistan Bar Council (2025 PHC 8586)
65 Asghar Ali Vs The State (2017 MLD 535), Ch. Shamsher Ali Vs Khalid Mehmood (2015 YLR 47)
66 The Legal Practitioners And Bar Councils Act, 1973
Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council framed the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council Media and Strike Regulation Rules, 2022, ("Rules 2022") published in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Gazette (Extraordinary) on 8 November 2022, purporting to act under section 56 read with section 9 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. Rule 9 bars any strike or protest call without Bar Council approval, and permits a strike only by majority after following the committee process under Rule 10, thereby recognising strike but subjecting it to regulation. A substantial question, however, arises as to competence of these Rules 2022. Section 9 only enumerates functions subject to the Act ibid and rules made thereunder, while section 56 confers a limited and itemised rule making power and does not expressly authorise regulation of media speech or strikes. Conversely, the Act ibid expressly vests in the Pakistan Bar Council the power to prescribe standards of professional conduct and etiquette, and the absence of comparable express authority for Provincial Bar Councils supports the view that these Rules 2022 travel beyond sections 9 and
56. Indeed, Articles 16, 17 and 19 of the Constitution confer upon citizens, including lawyers, the rights of peaceful assembly, association and freedom of speech, but each is expressly subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law, including on grounds of public order, morality, decency and contempt of court. Article 10A, however, guarantees fair trial and due process for determination of civil rights and obligations and in every criminal charge, and the Constitution provides no stated restriction upon this guarantee. The Supreme Court in Faizabad Dharna case67 held that Right of assembly, the freedom of association and the freedom of speech could not be exercised by infringing the fundamental rights of others. Consequently, where the exercise of rights under Articles 16, 17 and 19 results in strikes, boycotts, obstruction of courts, or any conduct that impedes
67 Suo Moto case No 7/2017 (PLD 2019 SC 318)
administration of justice and undermines fair trial and due process, such exercise exceeds constitutional limits and cannot be permitted as it offends Article 10A. Hence, in view of the above, any strike, boycott, or deliberate non-appearance before the Court after execution of a wakalatnama is illegal and unconstitutional. The Court is not required to wait for counsel or adjourn the case on this ground, and shall, where necessary, appoint State counsel to ensure representation of the accused. The Court may proceed on the available record where any party, including the accused, despite clear warning, fails to engage counsel, declines to accept State counsel appointed by the Court, or refuses to cross examine witnesses. Where warranted, the Court may invoke the relevant penal provisions against counsel for intentional non-appearance or disobedience, and against the accused for obstructing the proceedings by his conduct.68
98. It is therefore incumbent upon the Bar, while discharging its professional and statutory duties, to act in a manner that facilitates rather than obstructs justice. Legal practitioners, as officers of the Court, must uphold the highest standards of integrity and professional ethics, ensuring that no act of omission or commission delays proceedings, prevents lawful access to court premises, or impedes the proper administration of justice. The courts have consistently reinforced that any conduct by advocates that obstructs judicial processes, whether by preventing lawful entry, hindering police officers, or failing to appear for proceedings after accepting a brief, is actionable as professional misconduct and contravenes both constitutional mandates and statutory provisions, including Sections 22
68 Abdul Ghaffar Vs The State (2011 SCMR 23), Ghulam Rasool Shah Vs The State (2011 SCMR 735), 2015 YLR 47, 2016 SCMR 141, 2020 CLC 1219, 2023 MLD 1260, 2023 S
C M R 421, PLD 2023 Peshawar 145.
and 41-47 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. In this context, we expect the legal profession to embrace its role as an indispensable partner in the administration of justice, ensuring that the courts can function without obstruction and that the rights of all litigants, including accused persons, are protected in accordance with law.
13. Responsibilities of the Judiciary in Ensuring Expeditious Justice
99. The criminal justice system hinges on the impartial and effective functioning of courts; therefore, the role of adjudicators is vital in the administration of justice. Accordingly, Judicial Magistrates, Illaqa Magistrates, and Magistrates on Duty (MOD) shall proactively and assertively supervise pre-trial proceedings, including custody matters, recording statements under section 164 CrPC, confessional statements,69 identification parades, and other pre-trial processes. All trial courts shall also ensure due diligence at post trial stages, including initial scrutiny of the case file, determination of jurisdiction, attendance of parties, careful framing of charge, proper recording of evidence, and issuance of a reasoned speaking judgment stating grounds for conviction or acquittal. In case of acquittal, the court shall specifically record whether the complaint was false and frivolous, whether the investigation was poor and defective, and whether prosecutorial oversight was adequate or otherwise. Their proactive application of sections 249-A and 265-K CrPC prevents frivolous or malicious prosecutions, while judicious resort to sections 195 and 476 CrPC, sections 166(2), 186(2) PPC, and section 250 CrPC counters false evidence, obstructive conduct, or procedural abuse. Speaking judgments, whether of conviction or acquittal, promote transparency
69 Guidelines for Confession: 2023 SCMR 139, 2016 SCMR 274 (locus classicus), 2017 SCMR 713,
2017 SCMR 986, 1992 SCMR 196 (locus classicus), 2021 YLR 777, 2020 PcrLJ 729, 2025 PLJ 6854
(2025 PHC 5501), 2019 PcrLJ 457.
and enhance public confidence, while a balanced application of the principles of reasonable doubt and the laws relating to probation and parole ensures humane and principled sentencing.
100. A matter of grave concern is the increasing tendency of courts to surrender control of their schedules to the personal diaries of counsel. Lawyers, while indispensable to the administration of justice, are professionals who render services for remuneration. The judicial process, however, is a public function supported by the resources of the state and funded through taxes paid by citizens. It is therefore the litigant who must remain at the centre of the system, and the courts must regulate proceedings in a manner that facilitates timely and meaningful access to justice. The practice of fixing dates solely on the convenience of counsel is incompatible with the statutory scheme and effectively shifts the authority of the court into private hands. Adjournments and future dates must be granted based on the needs of justice and the availability of the parties, not merely on the diaries of counsel. Courts must also remain vigilant against any influence or pressure arising from positions held by lawyers in Bar Associations, whether as office bearers or cabinet members. Bars are representative bodies of lawyers, not of courts, and they have no supervisory or controlling authority over the judiciary. Judicial independence demands that no undue influence, implied or explicit, be permitted to colour judicial discretion. Any attempt to secure preferential treatment on the basis of a lawyers position within a Bar body must be firmly resisted, for such practices erode equality before law and compromise the credibility of the system. To address this concern, this Court has constituted a Redressal Committee (Notification No. 299-J dated 25.08.2025) chaired by the Senior Puisne Judge, enabling district judges to report undue influence within twenty-four hours. It is well recognized that training, protection, and accountability are three essential tools for improving the performance of judicial officers. Accordingly, training should be a
permanent feature of judicial service, and every judicial officer should be afforded an opportunity to undergo initial and continuing training, including refresher courses wherever required. The second equally important aspect is the protection of judicial officers in both the official sphere and the private sphere. The law has already provided immunity and indemnity to judicial officers, including under Chapter IV of the Pakistan Penal Code, particularly section 77,70 and the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850. This protection, however, is not absolute, especially in cases involving mala fide intention or gross incompetence. Its purpose is to enable judicial officers to act independently and proactively in the discharge of their functions, for without such assurance a judicial officer may be deterred from rendering decisions in accordance with law and conscience. In Hasnain Raza,71 the Supreme Court observed that the District Judiciary is the backbone of the judicial system, that district judges dispense justice at the frontline in difficult and demanding conditions, and that higher courts must appreciate the stressful environment in which they perform; the Court further emphasized that the system recognizes judicial fallibility through appeals and revisions, that appellate correction of error is routine, and that intemperate criticism founded on a sense of personal infallibility must be avoided, since everyone may make mistakes. Similar views have been expressed in Nusrat Yasmeen72 and Sultan Ahmad,73 underscoring that the High Courts should protect judges of the District Judiciary. False, frivolous, and fabricated complaints, as well as transfer applications containing such unfounded allegations, shall be dealt with firmly to protect judicial officers on the one hand and to curb delays in the disposal of cases on the other. Moreover, the Government, particularly the DIG (Security), shall ensure adequate
70 Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law.
71 Hasnain Raza Vs Lahore High Court (PLD 2022 SC 7)
72 Nusrat Yasmin v. Registrar, PHC (PLD 2019 SC 719)
73 Sultan Ahmad v. Registrar (2023 SCMR 1955).
protection and security for all judicial officers, whether posted in courts or on ex cadre assignments across the province, and the Registrar of this Court shall immediately take up the matter with the relevant authorities. The third indispensable feature is accountability, for without accountability the misuse of powers cannot be effectively curbed. Therefore, while providing adequate training and appropriate protection in relation to judicial acts and personal security, accountability must proceed side by side so that institutional independence is preserved, public confidence is strengthened, and the administration of justice yields fruitful results. The High Court, under Article 203 and the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, remains duty- bound and empowered to safeguard judicial independence and address contemptuous acts against judiciary and judicial officers.
101. A core requirement is timely trial and disposal, before witness memory fades. Delay in justice is denial of justice. A persistent obstacle to effective justice is the non-attendance of prosecution witnesses, which is one of the biggest causes of delay. Courts may resort to coercive measures including warrant of arrest, proceedings under section 87/88 CrPc,74 salary attachment, CNIC blocking, or taking action under sections 174 and 186(2) PPC, where absence is deliberate, while video-link recording may be operationalised through the Criminal Justice Coordination Committee to ensure timely evidence. The prosecution must proactively secure the attendance of its witnesses, and while mere non-appearance does not automatically justify acquittal, deliberate avoidance may warrant recourse to coercive measures under section 186(2) PPC against prosecution. However, a significant impediment persists: under section 195 CrPC, offences falling within sections 172 to 187 PPC cannot be taken cognizance of by trial courts on their own motion and are further excluded from the ambit of section 476 CrPC. This statutory bar diminishes judicial
74 CrPC, Schedule -V, Form-V and Form VI against witnesses.
capacity to enforce compliance where witnesses or public officials obstruct proceedings. To effectively curb such practices and strengthen accountability within the system, the relevant provisions require amendment so that trial courts may directly take cognizance of such offences and ensure meaningful enforcement of summons and judicial orders. Thus, this issue is left to the relevant forum i.e. provincial legislature.
102. Courts bear a constitutional duty to secure expeditious justice by prioritising under-trial matters, enforcing timelines, discouraging adjournments, imposing costs where necessary, utilising ADR where permissible, ensuring legal aid for indigent prisoners, and strengthening bail verification mechanisms. Effective oversight through District & Sessions Judges, Criminal Justice Coordination Committees and the Provincial Justice Committee remains vital to address systemic delay. Continuous professional development through federal and provincial judicial academies is equally essential so that judicial officers are trained in case management, evidentiary assessment, pre-trial processes and modern delay-reduction tools, thereby reinforcing institutional credibility and public confidence. The growing incidence of false or exaggerated complaints, fabricated evidence and conduct subverting justice can be countered through proper application of section 195 read with section 476 CrPC. While section 195 bars courts from initiating proceedings in respect of offences under sections 172-187, 193-196, 199-200, 205-211, 228, 463, 471, 475 and 476 PPC unless the
complaint is filed by the concerned public servant or court, section 476 CrPC relaxes this bar for specified offences, empowering civil, revenue and criminal courts to take cognizance directly, try such matters summarily and enabling superior courts in the hierarchy to act as well. Together, these judicial tools must be employed proactively to deter abuse of process and uphold the integrity of criminal adjudication. People look to the judiciary as the last hope for the weak and oppressed.
The system must prevent injustice to the innocent through careful, reasonable effort, sustain public trust, convict and punish the guilty, prevent reoffending, and protect the life, property, and honor of the innocent.
103. In Qazi Naveed-ul-Islam,75 a three-member Bench of the Supreme Court held that the power under section 476 CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, guided by whether action is "expedient in the interests of justice," while guarding against its misuse for private vendetta. In Muhammad Mushtaq,76 the Supreme Court affirmed that where an offence under section 228 PPC occurs in the Court's presence, it may act summarily under sections 480 or 482 CrPC, or invoke section 476 CrPC; these remedies are concurrent and ensure prompt control of contemptuous conduct. In Abdul Hakeem,77 it was held that although section 195 CrPC bars cognizance of offences under section 193 PPC except on a complaint, section 476 operates as an alternative mechanism empowering civil, criminal, and revenue courts to take cognizance themselves and try the matter summarily to preserve judicial authority. In Irshad Ahmed,78 the Court clarified the distinct scopes of sections 480, 482 and 476 CrPC, section 480 allowing only a minor fine before rising of court, section 482 enabling referral for regular trial, while section 476 permits direct cognizance with broader sentencing powers to curb obstruction and uphold justice. In Muhammad Fareedun,79 the Supreme Court held that applications seeking action for offences committed during proceedings must be treated as petitions under section 476 CrPC even if not so titled, noting that false evidence is rampant but seldom pursued, and remanded the matter for inquiry and action. Consistent with Chapter 8, Volume III of the High Court Rules and Orders, courts must exercise section 476
75 Qazi Naveed Ul Islam v. District Judge Gujrat (2023 PLD Supreme Court 298).
76 Muhammad Mushtaq v. The State (2003 PLD Supreme Court 19).
77 Abdul Hakeem v. The State (1994 SCMR 1103).
78 Irshad Ahmad v. The State (1992 SCMR 1229).
79 Muhammad Fareedun v. The State (1987 SCMR 1962).
CrPC powers only where expedient in the interests of justice and after preliminary inquiry, especially in serious cases of perjury or obstruction. For clarity of process, reference may be made to Amjid Ali IHC.80
104. Now coming to another crucial issue about adjournments. Ordinarily, it is assumed that costs cannot be imposed in criminal proceedings, but this is incorrect. Volume III of the High Court Rules and Orders expressly permits such costs: paragraph 15 of Chapter 1-D clarifies that under section 344 CrPC, a court may award costs against the party responsible for an adjournment. This Court affirmed the principle in the case of Azad Khan.81 Paragraph 15 of Chapter 1-D of Volume III of the High Court Rules and Orders is reproduced below:
15. Cost of adjournment---The attention of Criminal Courts is drawn to 20 P.R.1904 (Cr.) in which it was held that the expression 'on such terms as it thinks fit' in section 344 of the Code gives the Court power to award costs for an adjournment to the party to whom loss is caused by such adjournment.
105. In Muhammad Hussain,82 the Lahore High Court held that unjustified delay in criminal trials constitutes abuse of process, the relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as follow:
10. In the above circumstances, there cannot be the least doubt that the cases have not progressed for over four or five years. The plight of the petitioner can well be understood. These cases were originally registered on 30th September, 1952, and the sword of damocles has been hanging over his head for over six years. The chances of the accused to defend himself after a lapse of so many years must have been seriously affected. If the prosecution does not take care to see that a case against an accused person is proceeded with expeditiously and allows it to linger on inordinately or delays its progress, the fault must lie at its door, whether for non-production of sanction, the witnesses, the co-accused from jail, or by frequent transfers of case from Court to Court, by change of law or by the conduct of the Prosecutor. The intention of the law is that a criminal case must be expeditiously disposed of without unnecessary delay. Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requires the Court to record (1) reasons for every adjournment (2) to consider the reasons for, and (3) the period for which an
80 Amjid Ali IHC v. The State (2024 PcrLJ 1803 Pesh)
81 Azad khan v. The State (2018 PcrLJ 879 Pesh).
82 Muhammad Hussain v. The State (PLD 1959 WP Lahore 322).
adjournment is to be granted. The section indicates that adjournments can be made for absence of witnesses or for any other reasonable cause. Any cause other than the absence of witnesses must be for a cause necessitating or justifying an adjournment on reasonable grounds. What is a reasonable ground is a question of fact in each case. The Court must apply its mind to its reasonableness and should not grant an adjournment mechanically and without good cause. The recording of reasons is as necessary a condition as the reasonableness of the cause for which adjournment is granted. The law also lays emphasis on the reasonableness of the time for which adjournment is granted. The provision has been made deliberately to avoid unnecessary delays and adjournments so as to ensure speedy decision. In the present case, the adjournments were given without any reasonable cause, and in fact for causes which did not exist. Adjournments were given for months when a Public Prosecutor had already been appointed for the conduct of the cases. The supply of copies, if it was necessary, could and should have been taken in hand simultaneously and not after a counsel had been nominated and in any case it should not have taken tent months to copy a few statements. The state of affairs discloses utter incompetence and callous disregard of the worry and anxiety of a person who is 'charged with crime. It is a mockery of law to allow criminal cases to proceed for four or five years without any progress. It is revolting to the conscience of a Judge under any system of law that a criminal case should take so long and still not be decided. The conduct of these cases by the learned Public Prosecutor reflects a lack of interest in the cases. He did not apply his mind to what was needed and he has sought adjournment after adjournment, which should not have been granted. Would an accused person have been given all these adjournments? If not, should the prosecution have been shown such an indulgence? If the prosecution fails persistently without reasonable cause to produce its witnesses, or seeks adjournments unjustifiably, it is the duty of a Court to proceed to judgment expeditiously and without unnecessary delay. Justice delayed is justice denied for the defence of the accused must suffer by lapse of time and the prosecution may also suffer likewise. A fair and speedy trial is the essence and essential of judicial administration in a civilised country. Protracted proceedings as in this case are a mockery of the law and must be deemed to be an abuse of process of Court.
106. In the case of Muhammad Shahid Yousaf,83 the Lahore High Court affirmed the true scope of section 344 CrPC, holding that the words on such terms are purposeful and empower a trial court to impose costs when granting an adjournment, the relevant para says:
It is well settled that at the time of interpreting a provision of law, approach is to be kept as dynamic, purposive and meaningful, while also keeping in view prevailing circumstances, need of the time, challenges being faced and to be faced in future and of course "safe
83 Muhammad Shahid Yousaf v. The State (2022 MLD 1331).
administration of justice", therefore, words "on such terms (mentioned above)" used in Section 344, Cr.P.C. is not without any significance and can be safely interpreted as including power/authority to impose costs while granting adjournment and such power may be considered as inherent in the Court for safe administration of justice, otherwise, aforementioned words would become redundant; it goes without saying that such interpretation will enhance the cause of justice, minimize unnecessary adjournment and save the system of administration of justice. Hence, impugned order dated: 19.01.2021 qua imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- in the case is justified in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, however, said amount is hereby reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5000/-.
107. Thus, in light of the above, and while interpreting the phrase "on such terms as it thinks fit" used in section 344 CrPC in harmony with Paragraph 15 of Volume III, Chapter 1-D of the High Court Rules and Orders, it is clear that a trial court may impose costs on the party whose conduct has necessitated an adjournment, and such costs may be directed to be paid to the person who has suffered loss or inconvenience as a consequence of that adjournment. Henceforth, all criminal courts where the CrPC applies shall invoke this provision for the imposition of costs whenever an adjournment is occasioned by the conduct of any party. The quantum of cost shall be determined by the court on a case- to-case basis and shall be imposed upon the person whose conduct necessitated the adjournment, whether that be the complainant, prosecutor, accused, counsel or witness. The cost shall be directed to be paid to the person who has suffered loss or inconvenience as a result of the adjournment.
14. Role and Purpose of Jails and Correctional Institutions
108. Modern criminal law views punishment as a multi-dimensional institution combining retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. Retribution satisfies moral accountability, deterrence protects society through discouraging future crime, prevention incapacities dangerous offenders, while reformation seeks to rebuild the offender as a law-abiding citizen. Courts now favour an integrative approach where different aims apply to different offences and
offenders, and incarceration is valued only insofar as it protects society and enables meaningful treatment. Within this framework, jails and correctional institutions are central to realising these purposes through secure custody, discipline and rehabilitative programmes. Effective prison administration is therefore vital. Reform measures include reducing overcrowding through non-custodial sentences, expanding parole and probation, segregating under-trial prisoners, deploying technology for hearings and record management, and conducting regular judicial inspections. Under-Trial Prisoner Review Committees and camp courts further help resolve delays and protect rights, while structured rehabilitation remains essential for reintegration and reducing recidivism, thereby strengthening the criminal justice system
15. Probation and parole
109. Application of probation and parole laws can effectively control overcrowding in jails. Directions issued by Supreme court of Pakistan in Raja Azmat Ali84 case in this respect are mentioned in the below words:
"4. We, therefore, dispose of the petition in the following terms:-
(a) It is declared that neglect or refusal to effectively enforce the enacted laws relating to release of a prisoner on the basis of probation is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, inter alia, under Articles 9, 10-A, 14 and 25 ibid.
(b) The respective Chief Executives' of the Federal Government and the provinces are directed to ensure that the enacted laws relating to release of a prisoner on the basis of probation are effectively implemented and made functional. (c) The Federal and Provincial Governments, as the case may be, shall ensure that the prisoners who are eligible under the enacted laws for availing the benefit of being released on probation are identified and their cases are processed expeditiously".
110. In the quoted case law, it has been held that probation laws are required to be fully implemented, and that failure to enforce these
84 Raja Azmat Ali v. Abu Malik Naseem (2023 SCMR 1867).
statutory provisions amounts to a violation of fundamental rights. The KPK Probation and Parole Act 202185 along with KPK Probation and Parole Rules, 2023, emphasizes rehabilitation and reintegration of convicts through probation and parole by prioritizing supervision, community service,86 vocational training, and treatment over incarceration, with the object of reforming offenders into law abiding and productive members of society. Consequently, the courts are under a duty to apply these laws in all appropriate cases. The probation officers shall maintain effective oversight, visit jails on a regular basis, identify cases that are fit for probation, and point out such cases before the competent court for consideration. Furthermore, the District Probation Officer shall be formally included in every meeting of the Criminal Justice Coordination Committee, where he shall submit a detailed report regarding the state of implementation of probation laws and the progress of eligible cases.
FINDINGS ON THE QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION:
111. Having examined the entire record, considered the functioning of each component of the criminal justice system, and heard learned counsel and stakeholders at length, it emerges that persistent gaps in training, oversight, accountability, and procedural clarity hinder effective justice delivery. Conflicting and overlapping laws, coupled with the absence of a structured framework for prosecutors, investigators, medical officers, and law enforcement agencies,
85 The Act is notified through gazette notification dated 16th June, 2023.
86 See section 7 of the KPK Probation and Parole Act 2021
reinforce the need for comprehensive reform. With these concerns in view, we now proceed to address the issues raised before us one by one.
112. As to question number 1, Section 154 CrPC employs mandatory language, and the superior courts have consistently affirmed that the Officer in Charge of a police station has no discretion to refuse registration of an FIR where the information discloses a cognizable offence, nor may he conduct any preliminary inquiry before performing this statutory duty. The Supreme Court in Muhammad Bashir87 and subsequently this Court in Balqaiz Ali Shah88 reiterated that FIR registration merely sets the criminal law in motion, and questions of truth, sufficiency or innocence fall within the investigative process under Sections 156, 169, 173, 249-A and 265-K CrPC Likewise, in Abdul Rehman Malik,89 it was held that Rule 24.4 of the Police Rules, 1934 does not curtail the obligation to register an FIR, nor allow subjective refusal at inception; and where an application under Section 22-A CrPC is allowed, it constitutes a judicial determination that the earlier refusal was unlawful. The Supreme Court in Haider Ali90 also lamented habitual disregard of Section 154 and directed strict adherence with appropriate action against delinquent officials. Stakeholders have duly highlighted that such refusal constitutes an offence under Section 166(1) PPC, misconduct under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Rules 1975, and invites consequences under Section 118 of the Police Act 2017. It is observed that while penal consequences exist, no tailored compensatory mechanism is available for complainants compelled to seek recourse under Section 22-A due to unlawful refusal of FIR registration. A proposal for statutory amendment introducing a compensatory framework whereby legal expenses and appropriate redress may be awarded in such situations, is
87 Muhammad Bashir v. SHO Okara (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 539).
88 Balqaiz Ali Shah v.Atta Ullah Jan (2025 PLD Pesh 36).
89 Abdul Rehman Malik v. The State (2020 SCMR 2037).
90 Haider Ali v. DPO Chakwal (2015 SCMR 1724).
therefore meritorious. However, recognising that framing or amending legislation lies within the domain of the Provincial Assembly, this Court may only underscore the identified lacuna and commend legislative attention to ensure accountability, deterrence and effective protection of citizens' rights in matters of mandatory FIR registration
113. As to question No 2, upon consideration of the record, submissions of learned counsel, and the views of institutional stakeholders, it is evident that false, frivolous or exaggerated complaints and FIRs attract both penal and compensatory consequences under the existing legal framework. Sections 182, 191-200, 211, 463, 465 and 471 PPC criminalise false information, fabricated evidence, false charges and forged documents, while Sections 109, 166, 201 and 219 PPC, read with Sections 118 and 119 of the Police Act 2017, render police officials liable where they knowingly abet such misconduct. Section 250 CrPC also provides a compensatory mechanism that ought to be consistently invoked by trial courts, and superior courts have repeatedly underscored that Section 476 CrPC should be employed where false evidence or malicious prosecution is detected.91 However, stakeholders rightly point out that Section 250 CrPC remains under- utilised and requires strengthening to make compensation meaningful, and that Section 476 CrPC could be made more effective if its scope is expressly expanded to cover offences under Sections 166-187 PPC. While recognising that enactment and amendment of legislation lie within the domain of the legislature (Provincial Assembly), this Court merely highlights the identified lacuna, and once again we commends legislative attention to strengthen the compensatory architecture and procedural tools for deterrence, and reiterates that false or fabricated proceedings offend Articles 4, 9 and 10-A of the Constitution and
91 2023 PLD Supreme Court 298; 2003 PLD Supreme Court 19; 1994 SCMR 1103; 1992
SCMR 1229; 1987 SCMR 1962; 2024 PcrLJ 1803 Pesh.
warrant strict penal, disciplinary and compensatory accountability under the existing statutory scheme.
114. As to question No 3, the record and submissions unequivocally establish that so-called "progress FIRs," registered without a credible complainant or foundational information, are unknown to law and offend the guarantees of Articles 4, 9 and 10-A of the Constitution. Stakeholders consistently described the practice as coercive and abusive, and even the Provincial Police Officer conceded that no statutory mechanism recognises such FIRs or allows avoidance of the mandatory scheme under Sections 154-173 CrPC Such FIRs permit action without lawful authority, expose individuals to arbitrary interference with liberty and reputation, and deny fairness and due process. It is, therefore, held that the registration of progress FIRs is unconstitutional and contrary to the CrPC, and any such FIR found on record must be discharged as lacking legal foundation. Police officials responsible for initiating or facilitating this practice shall be proceeded against strictly in accordance with law through appropriate penal, disciplinary and accountability mechanisms.
115. As to question No 4, the material before the Court demonstrates that defective investigation, weak prosecutorial oversight, and delays or improper procedural application by criminal courts constitute the principal causes of low conviction rates, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Stakeholders unanimously identified investigation as the weakest link, often conducted without scientific rigour, independent scrutiny or adherence to statutory requirements, and frequently entrusted to inexperienced officers operating under external pressures. Side by side, the prosecution has not consistently discharged its statutory role under the KP Prosecution Act, 2005, resulting in inadequate guidance during investigation and insufficient scrutiny of final reports under section 173 CrPC, thereby allowing investigative
defects to remain unrectified. The record further reflects that courts routinely grant adjournments mechanically, fail to enforce statutory timelines or secure witnesses effectively, and invoke the doctrine of benefit of doubt without diagnosing whether the doubt stems from false prosecution, defective investigation or perjury while rarely employing penal tools such as sections 250 and 476 CrPC and relevant PPC provisions to deter recurrence. It is, therefore, concluded that unless each institution performs its statutory duties competently, independently and within mandated timelines, the fair administration of justice will remain compromised and conviction rates will not meaningfully improve.
116. As to question No 5, the material before the Court establishes that the investigation branch of the police is not presently insulated from operational control to the degree necessary for independent and effective performance of its statutory role. Despite the framework envisaged under the Police Order, 2002 and the Police Act, 2017, the Additional Chief Secretary frankly acknowledges that a truly autonomous investigation branch has not materialised, and that operational command continues to influence investigation beyond the police-station level. In light of Rule 25.2(3)92 of the Police Rules 1934 and Article 18 of the Police Order 2002, as explained through the case law of Nazir Ahmad,93 Ashiq alias Kaloo94 and Bashir,95 requires that investigating officers remain neutral and must not combine roles that compromise fair trial guarantees under Article 10A. Stakeholder submissions, including those of District and Sessions Judges, consistently emphasise that separation of investigation must extend
92 It is duty of an investigating officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person.
93 Nazir Ahmad v. The State (PLD 2009 Karachi 191).
94 Ashiq alias Kaloo v. State (1989 PCrLJ 601).
95 State v. Bashir and others (PLD 1997 SC 408).
through all tiers rather than operate nominally at station level. It is therefore held that the investigation branch, in its current arrangement, lacks functional independence, and while mindful of institutional boundaries, it is observed that a strengthened separation of investigation from operational policing, extending up to the hierarchy overseeing recruitment, posting, evaluation and discipline of investigating officers, would better secure impartial investigation consistent with constitutional and statutory mandates.
117. As to question No 6, this Court finds that the substantive and procedural criminal laws presently in force in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa do not meet contemporary needs, particularly those required for a stronger and more accountable criminal justice system. The record reflects that the statutory framework demands serious review, especially provisions concerning arrest, investigation, and compensation under section 250 CrPC, witness protection, and the role of magistrates, to align with constitutional guarantees, scientific investigation, and an inquisitorial justice model. It has been noted that the Province lacks an independent forensic laboratory despite statutory requirements, and institutional deficiencies persist in investigation quality, prosecution services, training, and safeguards against misuse of arrest powers. These weaknesses show that the existing framework has not kept pace with modern standards of justice and accountability. Accordingly, reforms are necessary: sections 166-187 PPC should fall within section 476 CrPC to enable trial courts to act directly; section 250 CrPC must be strengthened to deter frivolous claims; sections 344 and 154 CrPC require amendment to curb abuse of process and secure prompt FIR registration. The Criminal Justice Coordination Committee should be given explicit statutory authority to call co-opted members and ensure implementation of its decisions through amendments to sections 74-76 of the Police Act, 2017. Investigation shall be separated from operational policing through amendment of section 26 of the Act ibid,
and the Provincial Judicial Committee shall be given statutory backing, or alternatively a Provincial Criminal Justice Committee may be constituted through amendment of the Police Act, 2017. It is also observed that while the legislature is fully competent under the Constitution to enact new laws, many such enactments frequently omit essential procedural designations. Critical information is often missing, such as whether an offence is cognizable or non-cognizable, bailable or non-bailable, triable by a Magistrate, a Court of Session, or a special tribunal, compoundable or non-compoundable, appealable or non- appealable, and whether investigation lies with the police or any other agency, as well as the extent to which the CrPC applies.96 The absence of these statutory clarifications creates confusion, results in inconsistent practices, and unnecessarily burdens courts with avoidable interpretation. It is therefore imperative that every special law expressly incorporate these attributes to ensure clarity, uniformity and effective administration of justice. Accordingly, it is required that all laws defining offences be reviewed by the Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights Department, first to address these anomalies and, second, to identify overlapping laws or laws creating jurisdictional confusion, and to propose appropriate amendments to the Government for consolidation and clarification.
118. As to question No 7, the Court finds that no effective or comprehensive oversight mechanism exists to ensure accountability of key criminal justice actors for non-compliance with their statutory duties. Although supervisory structures formally exist, they remain largely fragmented and without enforceable authority. Criminal Justice Coordination Committees, intended as institutional oversight forums,
96 The KP (Prohibition of Firing and Use of Explosive Substance at Marriages and Other Ceremonies) Act, 1988, The West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, The KP Hotels Restriction (Security) Act, 2014, The KP Injured Persons And Emergency (Medical Aid) Act, 2014, The National Disaster Management Act, 2010, The KP Public Health (Surveillance And Response) Act, 2017 (In this Act court of session was replaced with special magistrate (14A) by substituting section 18 of the Act ibid) etc
have been rendered ineffective because their decisions lack enforceability-an issue repeatedly noted by the District Judiciary, KP Judicial Academy, law enforcement agencies and government departments. Oversight mechanisms within police, prosecution and medico-legal services exist in form but fail to secure compliance in investigation, challan submission, arrest practices, or medico-legal performance. The material on record thus reveals a systemic institutional vacuum, contributing to delays, defective investigations, negligent prosecution and broader failures within the justice chain. Mere existence of scattered bodies is insufficient without enforcement capacity. There is provincial Justice Committee which was originally constituted pursuant to the decision of the National Judicial Policy Making Committee dated 30 May 2015 and was notified on 20 June 2015.97 Its mandate and composition were later revised through a fresh notification issued on 5 April 2023.98 The Committee functions as the apex provincial body responsible for ensuring effective coordination between the judiciary, executive and law enforcement agencies for improved administration of justice in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Its powers and functions include reviewing the law and order situation, implementing NJPMC decisions, formulating policies to strengthen the rule of law, enhancing coordination among justice sector institutions, monitoring the performance of District Criminal Justice Coordination Committees, inspecting prisons, ensuring provision of free legal aid and issuing policy or operational directions to improve justice sector service delivery. The Committee is chaired by the Honorable Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, and its membership includes the Registrar of the High Court, Secretary of the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Home Secretary, Secretary Law, Secretary Prosecution or DG Prosecution, Inspector General of Police or PPO, Prosecutor General, Inspector General of Prisons, Advocate General, the senior most
97 F.14(275)/2012/NJPMC/LJCP DATED 20.06.2015
98 F.3/PJC/Research/RO-I/KPK/NJPMC DATED 5.04.2023
working District and Sessions Judge, the Director of Anti-Corruption Establishment and any other officials or persons nominated as co-opted members. However, it lacks the power to implement its decisions, like the District Criminal Justice Coordination Committee. Accordingly, it is recommended that the District Criminal Justice Coordination Committees be strengthened by empowering them to implement their decisions. It is further recommended that the Provincial Justice Committee be accorded legal backing and implementation authority, or alternatively, that a Provincial Criminal Justice Committee be constituted through appropriate amendments to the KP Police Act, 2017, so that these bodies may serve as empowered and accountable oversight forums.
119. As to question No 8, the Court finds that the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa presently lacks a fully equipped and independent Forensic Science Laboratory. Existing facilities are structurally insufficient, reliant on limited in-house arrangements and external services, causing delays, transparency concerns, and impacting the quality of criminal trials. The FSL's workload has risen from 2,384 cases in 1978 to 83,687 in 2024, while sanctioned posts remain 85, of which only 44 are filled. The record shows steps have been taken to rectify this: land has been acquired for an independent FSL in Peshawar, financial allocations under ADP schemes have been released, and an amended PC-1 has been submitted for approval. The proposed facility will house multiple specialised disciplines, including DNA analysis, digital forensics, latent fingerprints, narcotics, firearms, questioned documents, and crime scene reconstruction. The Provincial Government has committed continued financial support to operationalise the FSL. It is directed that work on the proposed independent Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) be expedited, requisite funds be released without delay, and staff shortages in the existing FSL be addressed through fresh recruitment, so as to ensure that the criminal
justice system becomes fully functional at the earliest. In addition, the existing FSL shall be made independent of the Police and the Investigation Branch as soon as possible.
120. As to question No 9, the Court finds that the prosecution in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is not fully performing its statutory duties under the Prosecution Service Act 2005, particularly regarding prosecutorial supervision, timely guidance to investigating officers, and effective case management. Stakeholders, including judicial officers and learned counsel, have consistently reported that prosecutorial oversight is weak, intermittent, and largely ineffective, contributing to defective challans, weak prosecutions, and low conviction rates. The Court notes, with reference to Syed Maqbool Shah 99 that delays in presenting witnesses, inadequate scrutiny of investigation reports, and lack of engagement with investigating officers materially impede the administration of justice and the right to a fair and timely trial. While the Prosecution Department has established monitoring mechanisms and a training academy, infrastructural deficiencies, heavy caseloads, and administrative shortcomings, including prolonged postings and limited authority over transfers, have hindered meaningful implementation of statutory duties. The Court observes that these are internal matters of prosecutorial administration; however, it advises the Prosecution Department to ensure rigorous supervision, active engagement with investigations, timely submission of challans, and compliance with statutory provisions under sections 5(d), 7, and 8 of the Act of 2005, with a view to improving efficiency, accountability, and the overall functioning of the criminal justice system.
121. As to question No 10, the Court finds that the Bar, though a foundational pillar of the criminal justice system, is presently falling short of its statutory, ethical, and constitutional responsibilities.
99 Syed Maqbool Shah v. The State (2021 Y L R 1517).
Lawyers are indispensable for safeguarding rights, ensuring fair representation, and maintaining the balance between authority and individual liberty. However, instances of strikes, boycotts, restrictive notifications, or resolutions issued by Bar Associations obstructing access to courts are impermissible and unconstitutional, as held in Shabir Khan,100 and violate Article 10A. This Court, in Shabbir Hussain versus Pakistan Bar Council (WP No 7516 of 2025),101 has held that strikes and boycotts which halt court work are unconstitutional as they obstruct justice and impair fair trial. The judgment notes that the cumulative direct operational cost of the judicial machinery wasted on each day of strike exceeds 57 million Rupees. Further data collected from the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Department shows that an amount of Rs. 402.500 million has been released during the year 2025 to the High Court Bar Associations at Peshawar, Abbottabad, Bannu, D.I. Khan and Swat, as well as to District Bar Associations and Tehsil Bar Associations. Similarly, Rs. 235 million was disbursed during the year 2024 to the High Court Bar Associations at Peshawar, Abbottabad, D.I. Khan and Bannu, in addition to disbursements made to District and Tehsil Bar Associations, while Rs. 30 million was released in 2025 to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council. These figures show that substantial public funds have been allocated to bar councils and bar associations during the preceding and current years, in addition to any funding that may have been released by the Federal Government, the details of which are not available. Notwithstanding these significant allocations from the public exchequer, concerns arise as to whether such support has translated into any commensurate improvement in the administration of justice, particularly when advocates already charge considerable professional fees from litigants. It further appears that these allocations are not demonstrably linked with the provision of free legal aid or tangible
100 Shabir Khan v. State (2025 PHC 4836).
101 Shabbir Hussain Vs Pakistan Bar Council (2025 PHC 8586)
relief for litigants. A serious question, therefore, arises regarding the justification for continued expenditure of public funds on bar associations, in addition to other institutional support, including provision of books, furniture and allied facilities, when measurable enhancement in service delivery and corresponding assistance to the justice system is not evident. Furthermore, the performance of Bar Councils in regulating professional discipline remains inadequate, with sparse and lenient action against misconduct weakening public trust and institutional credibility. The Court emphasizes that the Bar must cooperate with courts, respect constitutional and statutory limits, and strengthen professional regulation. Any act obstructing access to justice or seeking unnecessary adjournments is illegal; the Court shall proceed with cases using available records and may, where necessary, appoint State counsel to assist in the administration of justice.102
122. As to Question No. 11, the Court finds in the affirmative that unjustified delay in the submission of challans and commencement of trial violates Articles 4, 9, and 10A of the Constitution. Section 173 CrPC mandates submission of investigation reports within fourteen days, yet Investigating Officers frequently delay, impeding timely trial, as noted in Amjid Khan103 and Gul Rehman.104 Such delays may attract penal accountability under sections 166(1), 175, and 186(2) PPC, which penalize disobedience of lawful directions, omission to produce required documents, and obstruction or falsification of investigations. However, section 195 CrPC bars cognizance of these offences, and section 476 CrPC does not currently empower trial courts to proceed. The Court recommends that sections 166 to 187 PPC be expressly included within the scope of section 476 CrPC, enabling trial courts to take cognizance and ensure effective enforcement of duties. However,
102 2023 SCMR 421, 2011 SCMR 23, 2011 SCMR 735, 2016 SCMR 141, PLD 2023
Pesh 145, 2023 MLD 1260, PLD 2021 Islamabad 169, 2017 MLD 535, 2015 YLR 47.
103 Amjid Khan v. The State (2021 SCMR 1458).
104 PLD 2021 Supreme Court 795.
it is again the prerogative of legislature to do legislation, for our duty is to identify the lacunas.
123. As to question No 12, the Court notes that the mandatory nature of Sections 154105 to 173 CrPC, including FIR registration, investigation, and challan submission, has already been addressed under Questions 2 and 11 above. Compliance with these provisions is obligatory, and any breach constitutes misconduct or offence, attracting penal, departmental, and constitutional consequences under Articles 4, 9, and 10A.
124. As to question No 13, the Court reiterates that failure to submit challans within the statutory period under Section 173 CrPC, as discussed under Questions 11 and 12, results in unlawful detention and violates Articles 4, 9, and 10A. Judicial remands in such cases cannot legitimize this illegality. Henceforth, courts shall not pass routine remand or postponement orders; specific reasons must be recorded, and the prosecution shall be directed to submit the challan within the prescribed time. Costs may be imposed on the police or prosecution for non-compliance under Section 344 CrPC.
125. As to question No 14, the Court finds that cumulative systemic failures in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's criminal justice system encompassing fabricated FIRs, investigatory malpractices, defective forensic and prosecutorial processes, delays in submission of challans, and inadequate oversight, amount to a structural denial of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 10A, 14, and 25. As
already discussed under Questions 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 13, these deficiencies result in unlawful detention, compromised fair trial, arbitrary enforcement of law, and unequal treatment before the law. The record shows that investigations are conducted without scientific
105 2020 PcrLJ Lah 461
rigour, forensic independence is lacking, prosecutorial engagement is inconsistent, and oversight mechanisms are ineffective, collectively undermining due process, personal liberty, dignity, and equality. These institutional shortcomings are systemic, not episodic, and they erode public confidence in the criminal justice system.
126. As to question No 15, As to Question No. 15, the Court notes that the harm caused by wrongful prosecution is not only legal but also personal, social, reputational, and financial. Arrest, detention, stigma, and loss of property affect the wrongfully accused, yet the current legal framework provides only limited compensation under Section 250 CrPC to the accused upon acquittal while Sections 544A and 546A CrPC apply primarily upon conviction to the legal heirs or victim. Penal provisions (Sections 182, 211, 166, 201, and 219 PPC) and proceedings under Sections 195 and 476 CrPC may punish misconduct but do not constitute compensatory remedies for victims or acquitted persons where investigation or prosecution fails, or where offenders remain unidentified. These gaps leave victims and the innocent without redress. The Court, therefore, recommends that the legislature consider reforms to establish a clear, effective, and comprehensive compensation mechanism, including expansion of Section 250 CrPC, to cover acquittals due to defective investigation, prosecutorial failure, or unknown offenders, while ensuring proportional remedies for harm caused by wrongful prosecution.
127. As to question No 16, the Court observes that non-submission of challans, defective investigations, obstruction of prosecution, and fabrication of evidence are already addressed under existing law through Sections 166, 167, 175, 186, 191-200, 209, and 218 PPC, as well as Sections 118 and 126 of the Police Act 2017, together with judicial oversight and supervisory structures like the Criminal Justice Coordination Committees. These provisions enable initiation of
proceedings against delinquent public servants and officers. As noted in the discussion under Questions 11-13, persistent failure to implement these statutory duties contributes to delays, unlawful detention, and defective prosecutions. While these mechanisms are legally sufficient if faithfully applied, the Court reiterates its earlier observation that bringing Sections 166-187 PPC within the ambit of Section 476 CrPC would empower trial courts to act directly and enhance accountability.
128. As to question No 17, the Court observes that the criminal justice system in Pakistan is fundamentally inquisitorial in character, consistent with Article 2A of the Constitution, statutory mandates, and precedents of the superior courts. Unlike civil proceedings, where litigation is largely adversarial, criminal offences are considered offences against the State and society, requiring the State to investigate, present, and safeguard evidence. The Lahore High Court in Ch. Muhammad Anwar106 held that "any piece of evidence which is essential for just decision of the case, has to be brought on record irrespective of the fact that either it favours one party or goes against other," and delays or procedural lapses are immaterial if evidence is necessary for justice. Similarly, the case of Abdul Latif Lassi107 emphasised that trial courts possess the power to rectify lapses by calling evidence crucial for determining guilt or innocence, reflecting the duty of the Court to act in the larger interest of society. The principle was reiterated in Waqas alias Kashi,108 highlighting systemic shortcomings and the need for courts to proactively ensure collection and production of evidence rather than relying on parties or stakeholders. Section 540 CrPC embodies this inquisitorial approach, empowering courts to summon or recall witnesses and examine any
106 Ch. Muhammad Anwar v. Judge Accountability Court (2021 MLD 648).
107 Abdul Latif Lassi v. The State (1999 MLD 1069).
108 Waqas Alias Kashi v. The State (PLD 2022 Lahore 319)
person whose evidence is essential for a just decision, a view reinforced by the Sindh High Court in Khuda Bux,109 the Balochistan High Court in Abdul Bari,110 and the Supreme Court in Muhammad Usman,111 which recognized 'Court witnesses' as a mechanism to uncover truth when evidence is suppressed. Sections 94, 190(1) (c), 540, and 539-
B112 of CrPC and articles 111-113, 131, 161 of QSO, 1984 confer inquisitorial powers, and the Court should invoke these powers whenever necessary to secure the ends of justice. The Court has also to keep in mind that in trying a case it has to find out the truth to render a judgment in accord with canons of justice. If it finds that the investigation is defective, it cannot just sit idle as a timorous soul and has to exercise all the enabling provisions under the law including section 540, CrPC to discern the truth. For the purpose of this provision, the Court even without any formal application from prosecution or accused, can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined.113 Therefore, we accordingly direct that all criminal courts shall exercise their inquisitorial powers proactively to secure the ends of justice, summon or recall witnesses as needed, and not abdicate their duty to ensure fair trial, while exercising caution not to interfere with investigations or prosecutions conducted lawfully.
129. As to question No 18, it is a settled principle of criminal law that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, a standard intimately linked with the presumption of innocence and forming the bedrock of a fair trial. The benefit of doubt accrues to the accused as a matter of right, even if arising from a single or slight uncertainty as held by a three-member Bench in Khair Muhammad.114 (See also Ahmed Ali
109 Khuda Bux v. The State (2024 Pcr.LJ 2014)
110 The State through Public Prosecutor v. Abdul Bari (2016 P Cr. L J 522).
111 Chairman NAB v. Muhammad Usman (P LD 2018 Supreme Court 28).
112 Asfandyar Vs Kamran (2016 SCMR 2084)
113 Nawabzada Shahzain Bugti Vs The State (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 160)
114 Khair Muhammad v. The State (2025 SCMR 1599).
v. The State (2023 SCMR 781). A reasonable doubt is not a trivial or imaginary doubt, nor one arising from sympathy, bias, or conjecture, but a doubt that is substantial, clear, and capable of influencing a prudent person as held by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 and State v. Griffin, 253 Conn. 195. Mere procedural lapses, minor investigative deficiencies, or innocent mistakes do not automatically constitute reasonable doubt if the evidence otherwise connects the accused to the offence as held in Muhammad Arshad.115 The standard of proof is higher than civil preponderance but short of absolute certainty, and must exclude every rational hypothesis other than guilt while remaining grounded in evidence or its absence as held in Muhammad Asghar Alias Nannah.116 Islamic jurisprudence similarly emphasizes that certainty cannot be overruled by mere doubt (al Yaqeen la Yazool bish Shakk), and where shubhah exists, penal liability may be moderated. The philosophy of the axiom that "the accused is the favourite child of law" does not imply that the Court should grant any unwarranted favour, indulgence or preferential treatment to the accused, rather it was coined to maintain a fair-minded and unbiased sense of justice in all circumstances, as a safety gauge or safety contrivance to ensure an even-handed right of defence with a fair trial for compliance with the due process of law, which is an integral limb of the safe administration of criminal justice and is crucial in order to avoid erroneous verdicts, and to advocate for the reinforcement of the renowned doctrine "innocent until proven guilty as held in Muhammad Riaz.117 Any reasonable doubt as to guilt must go to the accused. Such doubt must be real, not fanciful. This golden rule of prudence, grounded in the maxim that it is better that ten guilty be acquitted than one innocent be convicted, requires utmost care and rejects haphazard, fitful decisions (State v. Mushtaq Ahmed, PLD
115 The State/ANF v. Muhammad Arshad (2017 S C M R 283).
116 Muhammad Asghar Alias Nananah v. The State (2010 SCMR 1706).
117 Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad (2024 SCMR 51).
1973 SC 418). It also accords with Islamic law that mistake of Qazi (Judge) in releasing a criminal is better than his mistake in punishing an innocent as held in Ayub Masih118 and as determined in Mushtaq Ahmad.119 Courts must exercise prudence, legal acumen, and conscience in assessing whether a doubt truly qualifies as reasonable. In sum, every doubt does not amount to reasonable doubt, but where a doubt, grounded in evidence or its absence, would induce a prudent mind to hesitate, the accused is entitled to its benefit, while procedural violations must still be addressed to ensure accountability and due process.
130. As to Question No 19, the record and reports clearly indicate that criminal cases are frequently not concluded within a reasonable time, due to overburdened courts, false or frivolous complaints, non- attendance of witnesses, repeated adjournments, delaying tactics, and strikes or boycotts. To address these challenges, the National Judicial Policy Making Committee, in exercise of its statutory mandate under the Ordinance of 2002120 and supported by the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan121 has formulated and periodically refined the National Judicial Policy,122 introducing strict timelines for expeditious disposal of cases, including six months for juvenile trials, twelve months for offences punishable up to seven years, eighteen months for offences above seven years, and twenty-four months for murder trials. In order to implement these guidelines, this Court has already issued Notification No. 70-73/PHC/SDJ/D.I dated 27.08.2025, directing all courts to adhere to the prescribed timelines. These timelines, now designated as the key performance indicators for judicial officers and incorporated into the institutional monitoring framework, underscore
118 Ayub Masih v. The State (P L D 2002 Supreme Court 1048).
119 The State v. Mushtaq Ahmed (PLD 1978 Supreme Court 418).
120 The National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee Ordinance, 2002
121 The Law And Justice Commission Of Pakistan Ordinance, 1979
122 National Judicial Policy 2009 (Revised in 2012 and 2025)
the constitutional imperative that justice must be timely, inexpensive, and effective under Articles 4, 10A, and 37(d). In furtherance of this objective, this Court has issued notifications123 directing all courts to comply with prescribed timelines, while statutory provisions such as sections 174, 175, and 186(2) of the PPC, alongside section 476 CrPC, may be invoked to address obstructionist conduct. Additionally, amendments to section 344 CrPC are warranted to impose costs, not less than five thousand rupees, on parties, their counsel, or witnesses responsible for deliberate delays, payable to aggrieved parties or the State, thereby promoting procedural discipline, deterring obstruction, and ensuring expeditious and accountable justice.
131. As to question No 20, after considering the submissions, reports, relevant laws, and precedents, it is evident that the criminal justice system suffers from delays, defective investigations, lack of modern techniques, inadequate protection of witnesses, and occasional improper judicial appreciation of evidence, resulting in wrongful acquittals or convictions and prolonged litigation that violates constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, and fair trial under Articles 9 and 10A. The Supreme Court, in Mehboob Hassan,124 highlighted these systemic shortcomings and issued directions emphasizing that judges must act with integrity, impartiality, and diligence; investigations must be timely, thorough, and compliant with the CrPC; and frivolous or malicious litigation must be curtailed. Building on these principles, this Court underscores the urgent need for all stakeholders including judges, investigating officers, prosecutors, and litigants to cooperate, adhere strictly to procedural mandates, ensure timely framing of charges and fair trials, protect witnesses, and avoid unnecessary delays, while the
123 1. (PHC letter No DR/(ADMN)/HC/43-A-16/2002 Dated 2-10-2002)
2. (PHC letter No. 2947 - 3034 / Dated Peshawar 2nd June, 1990)
3. (PHC letter No. 5578-5699 / Admn: Brh: Dated Pesh: the 16th Sep: 1992)
4. (PHC letter No. 1230-1253/Admn Dated Peshawar, 02nd February, 2009)
5. OFFICE ORDER NO 25-J Dated Peshawar the 28th January, 2019
124 Mehboob Hassan Vs Akhtar Islam ( 2024 SCMR 757)
State must strengthen the judiciary and investigation mechanisms, provide adequate resources, and consider legislative reforms to streamline criminal justice, thereby safeguarding public confidence, preventing abuse of process, and ensuring expeditious, inexpensive, and effective justice.
GUIDELINES AND DIRECTIVES
132. Mere legislation is not sufficient, nor does it serve any purpose unless it is specifically enforced and administered.125 In view of the above observations of the Court, and in order to strengthen and effectively address the shortcomings in the criminal justice system of the province, the following guidelines, directives and recommendations are issued.
1. For Police and Investigation
1. Sections 149 to 153 CrPC read with Chapter XXI of the Police Rules, 1934 and section 4 of KP Police Act 2017 form the preventive policing framework. They empower and obligate the police to prevent offences, protect public property, and address matters affecting public order and fair trade. These powers are preventive, not punitive, and must be exercised within the limits of law, necessity, and proportionality. The Station House Officer ("SHO") shall take timely preventive action where an offence is reasonably capable of being prevented; failure to do so shall be treated as inefficiency. Clear and uniform standard operating procedures shall be framed and enforced to regulate the use of preventive powers, prevent unlawful detention and misuse, and maintain due balance with fundamental rights.
2. The complainant shall disclose the whole truth of the occurrence while lodging an FIR. The officer recording the FIR shall, before
125 The Province of Sindh Vs Abid Ali Jatoi (2025 SCMR 1058)
registration, caution the complainant that lodging a false or incorrect report is an offence and may entail prosecution and punishment under Section 182 PPC, including imprisonment which may extend to seven years.
3. Where information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the police shall record such information forthwith and register the FIR without delay.126 Any refusal or unjustified delay in this regard shall entail legal consequences including action under sections 166 and 217 PPC and section 118 of the KP Police Act, 2017.
4. The SHO shall not withhold registration of an FIR on the pretext that the legal heirs or family members of a deceased person, or any victim, have not yet nominated an accused. Upon receipt of information relating to a cognizable offence, the police shall immediately register the case and commence investigation in accordance with law, without awaiting nomination by the legal heirs, family members of the deceased, or the victim.
5. The officer recording the report is statutorily bound to record its contents faithfully and verbatim, in the same words as stated by the complainant. The scribe shall not make any additions, deletions, or alterations to the complainant's language and shall avoid the use of ambiguous or multi-meaning words or expressions. Likewise, the scribe shall neither coach, tutor, nor otherwise influence the complainant regarding the mode and manner of the occurrence, nor encourage the complainant to "cast the net wider" by falsely implicating any person not connected with, or privy to, the occurrence.
6. After lodging of the report, the scribe of the report shall honestly and fairly prepare all other necessary documents, including the injury sheet, inquest report, and any other required papers, and shall complete all columns of the relevant pro forma with due application of mind and with reasonable detail. Any intentional or willful failure
126 2002 MLD 280.
to do so shall amount to offences under Sections 166(1), 217, and 218 of the PPC, and Section 118 of the Police Act.
7. A written Standard Operating Procedure should also be framed, clearly defining the responsibility of the casualty police, the stage at which investigation shifts to the local police station, and the protocol for transmission of the report after registration, with written justification required for any deviation.
8. The power of arrest shall be exercised with reasonable caution and care. Mere registration of an FIR, without sufficient material justifying arrest, shall not ordinarily warrant arrest and shall be avoided.127 Such discretion shall be exercised uniformly, without selectivity or discrimination. Furthermore, in the event of an arrest, the following guarantees shall be observed strictly: (i) the right to be informed promptly and clearly of the grounds of arrest; (ii) the right to consult and be assisted by counsel; (iii) the right against self- incrimination; and (iv) the absolute prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. 128 The time of arrest shall be mentioned in the card of arrest.
9. Under Article 14 and Article 10-A of the Constitution, no torture, coercion, or unlawful confinement is permissible. Pre- and post-arrest medical examinations shall be strictly conducted, documented, and reported to the magistrate. In 2010, Pakistan ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture 1984, which bans torture under international law. Pakistan later enacted the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act 2022 to meet treaty obligations. Conducting searches of dwelling houses without a lawful search warrant is illegal and should be discontinued immediately.
10. The Investigating Officer shall, after the arrest of the accused or if otherwise he appears before him, as the case may be, record the plea of the accused and investigate the same, and any negligence or
127 PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595
128 PLD 2020 Supreme Court 334, PLD 1966 Supreme Court 286
dereliction in this regard shall amount to misconduct on the part of such Investigating Officer under the relevant rules. An investigating officer must remain neutral and must not combine the roles of complainant, raiding officer, and investigator, as such fusion compromises fairness under Article 10A.
11. The station diary, commonly known as the daily diary, maintained at the police station under Rules 22.45(2), 22.48, and 22.49, and the case diary maintained under section 172 CrPC read with Rules 25.53, 25.54, and 25.55 of the Police Rules, 1934, shall be properly maintained and regularly updated. Every step shall be properly recorded in the case diary by the IO. Failure to do so entails departmental proceedings.
12. IOs shall not rely solely on the version recorded in the FIR nor shift responsibility to the complainant for producing evidence. Under Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules 1934, they are duty bound to discover the truth, identify the actual offender, and gather both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. They shall not seek instructions from unauthorized superiors or private persons. Any interference shall be immediately documented and reported to the Illaqa Magistrate and the Chairperson of the Criminal Justice Coordination Committee.
13. Investigating Officers (IOs) shall ensure the preservation and systematic documentation of the crime scene in accordance with modern forensic standards, including photography and videography, preparation of sketches and scene plans, and lawful forensic sampling. Any deviation or non-compliance shall be explained by recording reasons in writing. The IO shall immediately dispatch DNA, ballistic, serological, toxicological, and other relevant chemical exhibits and samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and shall maintain a strictly documented chain of custody from the time of collection through dispatch, receipt, storage, and production before the competent court.
14. All case property shall be securely sealed, distinctly marked, duly entered, and forthwith deposited in the Malkhana in accordance with law. Any misuse, tampering, or misappropriation thereof shall constitute criminal breach of trust, rendering the delinquent official liable to penal consequences under sections 403 and 409 PPC, in addition to departmental action.
15. There shall be an independent Malkhana in each district, free from the influence of the operational and investigation wings of the police and the prosecution, where case property, once produced before the Judicial Magistrate at the custody stage, shall be deposited, and the same shall remain under the supervision of the District and Sessions Judge, who may appoint any Judicial Officer to oversee its management. In cases involving narcotics, the destruction procedure prescribed in Directive No 58 shall be strictly complied with. The Provincial Government is directed to establish such Malkhana forthwith in judicial complexes where space is available and, where space is not available, to arrange suitable premises as near to the judicial complex as practicable.
16. It is directed that, during the course of investigation, the IO shall maintain close liaison with the District Public Prosecutor (DPP) or the Public Prosecutor (PP) assigned to the relevant police station, and is statutorily bound to keep the DPP/PP informed and involved at every stage of the investigation. The DPP/PP shall, in turn, provide guidance and assistance to the IO as and when required.
17. The IO, on the basis of the material so collected, shall furnish a clear and independent opinion, separate from what is stated in the challan, as to whether the complainant has lodged a true report and nominated the actual offender, or has made any exaggeration, substitution, or false implication, or has nominated the wrong accused. The Investigating Officer shall also specifically opine whether the offence is the outcome of the right of self-protection or otherwise. Such
opinion is not binding on the court, as it is the court alone that determines the innocence or guilt of the accused.129
18. The final report under section 173 CrPC shall be submitted within 14 days; failing that, an interim challan shall be submitted within the next three days. Failure without lawful justification shall attract action under sections 166(1), 175, and 186(2) PPC and section 118 KP Police Act.
19. False, defective, incomplete, or misleading investigation reports may attract liability under sections 166(2),130 167, and 218 PPC, 118 of Police Act 2018 as well as departmental proceedings against delinquent officer. Similar provisions are also available in section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, section 22 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 and section 32 of KP CNSA 2019.
20. It is directed that a reasonable number of cases be assigned to each Investigating Officer, and that no officer be overburdened, so as to improve the quality of investigation. A clear SOP shall be devised whereby the number of cases assigned to each investigator is determined on objective criteria, including the number of pending cases, their nature, and their severity.
21. It was also noted that departmental training in the Police Department has been compromised in the recent past as its duration, syllabus, and manner have been reduced and curtailed; therefore, it is directed that structured and mandatory training for all SHOs, Moharrirs (station clerks), and IOs in law, forensic science, cybercrime, investigation techniques, and the jurisprudence of fair trial be conducted through the KP Judicial Academy, Prosecution Academy, and Police Training Academies,131 and that upon completion of the prescribed training period an examination shall be held, and training completion certificates shall be awarded only to those trainees who pass the said
129 Muhammad Arshad Vs The State (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 350)
130 Ikramuddin Rajput Vs IGP (2024 SCMR 510)
131 See Footnote No 33
examination. There shall be no cherry picking in the selection for training.132
22. At the district level, the Criminal Justice Coordination Committee may conduct structured training programs for Moharrirs (Station Clerks), IOs, SHOs, and medical officers. Senior Civil Judges, Judicial Magistrates, District Public Prosecutors, senior criminal lawyers, forensic experts and research officers of Peshawar High court may serve as resource persons and provide practical guidance in these trainings.
23. All IOs shall be under a legal duty to know, understand and be guided by the guidelines of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency governing the collection, preservation, and transmission of samples. These guidelines shall also be made available at every police station, along with an Urdu translation wherever necessary. The District Investigation Head shall, from time to time, ensure that the investigating officers are well acquainted with these guidelines.
24. The performance of police shall not be assessed on the number of FIRs registered, as this encourages spurious or performance-driven FIRs and undermines public trust. Performance shall instead be evaluated on maintenance of peace, crime prevention, fair and prompt investigation of genuine offences, protection of vulnerable persons, and improvement of law and order within the jurisdiction, and any manipulation of FIR statistics shall entail departmental and legal consequences.
25. It was observed that the number of DFCs is insufficient and that their performance requires structured oversight. A clear evaluation mechanism shall be adopted, including periodic performance reports to the concerned Magistrate and the Criminal Justice Coordination Committee, supervisory audits through random and scheduled inspections by Magistrates, Senior Civil Judges, and District and
132 Gul Hassan Jatoi V Faqir Muhammad ( 2026 SCMR 1254)
Sessions Judges, and regular graded, assessment based training to strengthen capacity and ensure compliance with legal duties. The use of smart phones and other modern technology shall also be introduced to improve field efficiency, enhance transparency, and provide an objective basis for performance assessment. Similarly, the Summons and Warrants Cell requires strengthening to ensure the effective, timely, and lawful service of court summons and warrants by posting competent officials in the larger interest of justice.
26. Extra judicial killings,133 staged and fake encounters, and enforced disappearances constitute a serious menace to the rule of law, public confidence, and the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 10, 10A, and 14 of the Constitution. Such acts are utterly impermissible, violate national law, and contravene the obligations of Pakistan under international conventions.134 No officer shall act beyond or against the law, and all law enforcement authorities are directed to prevent, report, and investigate such incidents. Any participation, complicity, or willful neglect shall attract criminal, civil, and departmental liability.
2. For Prosecutors
27. Prosecutors shall actively exercise their statutory duty of supervision under the KP Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2005, including recent amendments, by scrutinizing investigation files from inception to ensure that investigations are lawful, impartial, and completed within the statutory time frame; for this purpose, regular consultation meetings between prosecutors and Investigating Officers shall be held and documented, reflected in the investigation diary, and prosecutors shall ensure timely examination of witnesses and under strict compliance with section 173 CrPC.
133 Benazir Bhutto vs President of Pakistan (1998 PLD Supreme Court 388)
134 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966)
28. No challan shall be forwarded to Court unless the prosecutor has furnished a written opinion on its completeness and legal sufficiency. Where necessary, the prosecutor shall require the Investigating Officer to remove defects, collect additional evidence, and avoid reliance on dubious or superfluous witnesses. This scrutiny shall be applied fairly and uniformly, and shall not be used as a tool to harass the police, to serve any ulterior motive, or to permit selective treatment among police stations.
29. On receipt of challan, the District Public Prosecutor shall peruse the material collected by the Investigating Officer and, if any deficiency is found, shall return the file for further investigation; where even thereafter no material sufficient to prosecute the accused is collected, the District Public Prosecutor shall recommend discharge to the Investigating Officer or shall move the trial Court for cancellation of the case. Such written advice shall be rendered within three days, and any undue or unexplained delay in returning or retaining files shall be treated as misconduct and may entail action under section 186(2) PPC for hampering prosecution.
30. The practice of retaining case files/challans by prosecutors for a prolonged period shall be stopped forthwith. Any opinion or scrutiny, whenever required, shall be completed immediately.
31. Prosecutors represent the State and not private parties. They shall remain neutral, fair, and independent, and shall refrain from associating with parties, counsel, or police officers in a manner compromising prosecutorial impartiality. They shall also avoid accepting any favour, benefit, or undue advantage from the police in any form or manifestation.
32. It is clarified that prosecutors shall not unnecessarily interfere in investigations by directing that any particular person be exonerated or implicated. Prosecutorial guidance and supervision shall remain
general in nature and shall be issued in writing, so that investigative autonomy remains intact.
33. Since promulgation of the Prosecution Act, 2005, prosecutors, as representatives of the State before the Court, are bound to produce evidence, case property, and relevant record whenever required. Consequently, the practice of using the Court orderly, commonly known as the Naib Court, for such production is no longer warranted. Where arrest or detention is required pursuant to a court order or MOD, the Security In-Charge of the court premises shall provide assistance as and when required. The Prosecutor on duty shall facilitate the MOD on gazetted holidays and beyond official hours. The worthy RPOs are directed to strengthen court security forthwith by posting competent personnel of proven integrity to facilitate the Court in such matters.
34. It has been observed that private counsel engaged by the complainant often overshadow the role of the Public Prosecutor, which is inconsistent with Section 494 of the CrPC and Section 4(2) of the KP Prosecution Act. Private Counsel must act strictly under the directions and control of the Public Prosecutor and should not assume an independent or dominant prosecutorial role.135 However, if the complainant believes that the Public Prosecutor is not properly performing, or is unable to perform, his duties, the complainant may approach the District Public Prosecutor or, as the case may be, the Director General Prosecution for replacement. Upon such request, the prosecutor shall be replaced and an inquiry conducted into the alleged inefficiency, misconduct, or dereliction of duty of the concerned prosecutor.
35. Prosecutors shall ensure that false, frivolous, exaggerated, or malicious cases are screened at the pre-trial stage. They shall approach courts under sections 182 and 211 PPC, section 250 CrPC, and section
135 1984 SCMR 594, 1987 SCMR 1353.
195 read with section 476 CrPC wherever the record reveals mala fides or demonstrable abuse of process.
36. Any wilful or ungrounded failure of an Investigating Officer to comply with prosecutorial directions shall be reported to the competent authority under Section 118 of the KP Police Act, 2017. Likewise, any lapse on the part of prosecutors shall be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with law.
37. Prosecutors shall undergo mandatory, graded, and assessment based training on evidentiary standards, modern investigative techniques, forensic science, cybercrime, and the jurisprudence of Article 10-A of the Constitution.
38. To ensure an independent and effective Prosecution Service, a transparent transfer and posting policy, aligned with provincial government policy, shall be formulated promptly. Prosecutors completing three years at a station shall be transferred without delay. Postings and transfers shall be made after meaningful consultation with, and due consideration of the recommendations of, the Director General Prosecution.
39. The Director General Prosecution, in consultation with the District Public Prosecutor of each district, shall assign duties to Public Prosecutors for gazetted holidays, and in the same manner as the Magistrate on Duty (MOD) performs duties round the clock, Public Prosecutors shall also be assigned round the clock duties.
40. The Policy Guidelines for Police and Prosecution regarding timely submission of complete and interim challans, formulated in 2024 on the basis of the principles laid down in the Amjid Khan Case136 and Gul Rehman case,137 require further refinement. These guidelines shall be implemented in letter and in spirit. A progress and
136 2021 SCMR 1458
137 PLD 2021 Supreme Court 795
implementation report shall be presented and reviewed during each monthly meeting of the Provincial Justice Committee.
3. For Medical Officers
41. Medical officers shall conduct medico legal examinations without influence from the police or any party, and shall prepare medico legal reports strictly in accordance with law, accepted medical standards, and judicial requirements; the reports shall be detailed, clear, legible, and free from ambiguity, and any attempt at interference shall be recorded and reported to the Illaqa Magistrate or the CJCC, who shall take action in accordance with law.
42. Delays in medico-legal reports, injury sheets, sexual assault reports, and post-mortem reports undermine investigations. Unjustified delay may attract proceedings under sections 166(1), 175 and 186(2) PPC.
43. Medical officers must receive mandatory training in medico-legal procedures, forensic pathology, sexual assault examination, documentation standards, and chain of custody protocols.
44. It is legal obligation of medical officers, under the directions of the court, to conduct a thorough examination of the accused from head to toe both before and after custody. This examination must be carried out without any influence from the police or the investigating officer and must be conducted in their absence. It shall be performed strictly in accordance with relevant medico legal protocols while ensuring the dignity and privacy of the accused.
45. All observations shall be fully and accurately recorded in the medical report. If a later medical board confirms torture, earlier examining medical officers shall face penal and departmental action for dereliction. All biological samples, bullets, weapons, and other exhibits shall be sealed, labelled, and handed to police against written acknowledgment to preserve forensic integrity.
46. Digital preservation of medico-legal records should be introduced and gradually made mandatory to prevent tampering and maintain transparency.
47. In offences such as murder and blasphemy, where the stakes are exceptionally high, medico legal assessment must be conducted with utmost precision, specialist expertise, and appropriate technological support. Tertiary and quaternary care hospitals, equipped with modern diagnostic and treatment facilities, are better placed to ensure comprehensive evaluation.
48. Determination of the mental state or lunacy of an accused, with direct bearing on culpability and sentencing, requires a panel of doctors of recognized excellence in psychiatry, forensic medicine, and allied fields. Accordingly, in addition to existing standing medical boards, a specialized medical board should be constituted for determination of lunacy in cases of murder and blasphemy, supported by advanced diagnostic instruments, so that evaluations remain accurate, credible, and legally defensible, thereby strengthening the integrity of medico legal assessment and public confidence in the justice process.
49. The worthy Secretary Health shall ensure the availability of medico- legal officers at all government-owned health centers immediately, or, in the alternative, shall ensure that the medical officers already posted are duly trained to handle medico-legal matters.
4. For Lawyers
50. Under Rule 166 of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, it is the professional duty of every advocate to appear when a matter is called or to make satisfactory alternate arrangements, failing which it constitutes misconduct under Rule 175-A, attracting disciplinary action under sections 41 and 42 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973; moreover, lawyers shall assist the Court in the administration of justice, faithfully discharge lawful duties to
clients, refrain from filing false or frivolous complaints, advise clients against misuse of the criminal process, and ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory obligations, and any breach shall amount to professional misconduct.
51. Any strike, boycott, or deliberate non-appearance before the Court, as well as any act that obstructs access to justice or restrains any person from entering any Court or its premises, is illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, and may, where applicable, attract sections 174, 186(1) and 186(2) PPC for, as the case may be, intentional non-attendance before the Court, obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions, or hampering the course of prosecution, in addition to any other penal provisions that may be attracted on a case-to-case basis.
52. Advocates who defy the law, disregard professional ethics, engage in unlawful strikes, or take the law into their own hands cannot be certified as fit and proper for enrolment before any court, nor can they be regarded as persons of requisite character and conduct for enrolment.138
53. The Canons of Professional Conduct contained in Chapter XII of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, mandate advocates to maintain respect towards courts (Rule 159), avoid improper publications regarding pending matters (Rule 164), and abstain from any conduct involving disloyalty to the law or disrespect towards the judicial office (Rule 172).
54. Misconduct, including deliberate delay, intimidation of witnesses, or misleading clients, shall be reported to the Bar Council. False affidavits or fabricated documents may attract proceedings under sections 195 and 476 CrPC.
55. Lawyers shall ensure timely filing of documents, proper preparation of witnesses, and readiness to proceed on each date. They must
138 PLD 2021 Islamabad 169
facilitate the examination of material witnesses first to assist the Court in the early application of sections 249A or 265K CrPC where warranted.
56. It is clarified that all judicial complexes, courts, and their premises are public property, constructed and maintained from the public exchequer, and remain under the exclusive control of the judiciary.139 Members of the Bar are provided Bar Rooms and allied facilities purely as a matter of facilitation, which do not confer any right of ownership, tenancy, or landholder-ship. Any misuse of court premises, including damage, unauthorized or illegal construction, encroachment, or obstruction of ingress, egress, or official use, is unlawful and must cease forthwith. Any violation shall entail legal and administrative action by the concerned District and Sessions Judge or the Senior Civil Judge (Administration), in accordance with law where it is required.
5. Directives for Courts
57. Every Judicial Magistrate shall proactively and effectively supervise investigation being overall in charge of a criminal case140 and, where required, lawfully assist Investigating Officers.
58. Mechanical custody orders shall be avoided; every custody order shall be a speaking order stating reasons for grant or refusal. If custody is granted, the order shall prohibit torture or ill treatment, state legal consequences for any breach, ensure the accused is produced141 before the Magistrate, and provide the accused an opportunity to object. In narcotics cases, no custody order shall be passed unless the case property is produced before the Court. In every such case, the Judicial Magistrate shall, on application or suo motu, under its supervision and
139 PLD 2021 Islamabad 169
140 Muhammad Ismail Vs The State (2012 PcrLJ Pesh 873), Khizar Hayat Vs IGP (PLD 2005 Lah 470)
141 PLD 2025 Lah 795, 2000 MLD 921, 1984 PcrLJ 2588
in the presence of the Prosecutor, the investigating officer and the accused, draw representative samples, order destruction of the remaining quantity forthwith or as soon as practicable, and, after supervising the destruction, issue a certificate of destruction. In case of any ambiguity regarding the FSL report, the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, may request the trial court to order a fresh FSL examination from the representative samples retained in the independent Malkhana.
59. Routine remand or judicial custody orders, where challans are not submitted within statutory time, result in illegal and unconstitutional detention, violating Articles 4, 9 and 10A and must be stopped forthwith.
60. The courts shall strictly adhere to the prescribed guidelines for conducting identification parades, as outlined in the judgment of Kanwar Anwar Ali142 and subsequently reiterated in the case of Subaha Sadiq.143
61. Henceforth, all courts, prosecutors, and the police shall ensure strict compliance with section 173(5)144 CrPC.
62. All criminal courts, exercising jurisdiction under section 344 of the CrPC, where the Code applies, shall impose costs whenever an adjournment is occasioned by the conduct of any party. The quantum of costs shall be determined by the Court on a case to case basis and shall be imposed upon the person whose conduct necessitated the adjournment, whether the complainant, prosecutor, accused, counsel, or witness. Such costs shall be directed to be paid to the person who has suffered loss or inconvenience as a result of the adjournment.
142 PLD 2019 SC 488, 2018 SCMR 577, 2017 SCMR 135, 1985 SCMR 721, 1992 SCMR
2088, 1995 SCMR 127, 2008 SCMR 302, 2008 SCMR 1221, 2011 SCMR 537, 2011
SCMR 563, 2012 SCMR 522, PLD 1981 SC 142, 2008 SCMR 1210, 2010 SCMR 1189,
2011 SCMR 537, 2017 SCMR 1189.
143 Subaha Sadiq v. The state (2025 SCMR 50)
144 (5) Where the officer in charge of a police-station forwards a report under sub-section (1), he shall along with the report produce the witnesses in the case, except the public servants, and the Magistrate shall bind such witnesses for appearance before him or some other Court on the date fixed for trial
63. Courts must protect witnesses from unnecessary harassment during cross-examination as per Arts. 142-149 QSO 1984. Immoral/improper questions are prohibited; proceedings may be initiated under Art. 145 QSO where applicable. Cross examination is a right, but if not exercised by own conduct, no complaint of prejudice survives.145 The role of the court is not to remain a silent spectator but to actively regulate and control proceedings and prevent any impurity from seeping into the stream of justice.146
64. Where it is necessary to secure the ends of justice, the Court shall invoke its powers under Section 540147 of the CrPC, 1898, to summon, recall, or re-examine any witness whose evidence is essential to a just determination of the case. Similarly, sections 94, 190(1)(c), 202, 351 and 539B of CrPC may be invoked where required.
65. Every trial Court may take cognizance of offences relating to false evidence, perjury, fabrication of evidence, forgery, or obstruction of justice arise during proceedings by invoking section 476 CrPC148 and try offences defined under Sections 175, 178, 179, 180, 193-196, 199,
200, 205-211, 228, 463, 471, 475, and 476 PPC, whereas for offences
under Sections 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, and 181-187 PPC, a complaint must be filed by the concerned public servant or by the Court under section 195 CrPC. As to Section 166(2) PPC, the Magistrate may take cognizance under section 190 (1) (C) of CrPC and try the offence as section 166 PPC falls outside the domain of section 195 CrPC.
66. Judicial officers are transferred in the ordinary course of service upon completion of their tenure at a station, and pending cases are then
145 Arbab Tasleem Vs The State (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 642)
146 Muhammad Arshad V. The State (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 350), 1999 SCMR 1418,
1981 SCMR 294, 2021 Pcr.LJ 1439 Pesh.
147 2023 PcrLJ 635 Pesh, 2022 SCMR 1882, 2021 PcrLJ 576 Pesh, PLD 2018 SC 28, 2017
YLR 1376 Pesh, 2017 PcrLJ 294 Pesh, 2017 MLD 1388 Pesh.
148 2023 SCMR 298, 1994 SCMR 1103, PLD 2003 SC 19, 1992 SCMR 1229, PLD 1985
SC 257, 1983 SCMR 616, 1970 SCMR 10, 2018 PLD Pesh 140, 2014 PLD Pesh 79, PLD
2013 Sindh 194, 2011 YLR 816, 2007 PcrLJ 1669 Kar, 1999 PcrLJ 61 Pesh, PLD 1992
Pesh 179, 1989 PcrLJ 1299 Pesh.
taken up and tried by their successors. In matters where evidence has been recorded wholly or partially, the successor judge has not observed the witnesses and therefore lacks the benefit of assessing their demeanour during deposition. It is, accordingly, necessary that trial courts record the demeanour of witnesses in terms of section 363,149 CrPC. Henceforth, all trial judges shall record the demeanour of witnesses, unless and until evidence is recorded digitally and the digital recording system is fully functional.
67. The Chairperson of the CJCC, being in charge of the criminal justice system of the district, may personally, or through any judicial officer nominated by them, visit the jails, probation centres, Darul Amans, and rehabilitation centres within their respective districts on monthly basis. The PJC shall formulate SOPs for such visits where none are prescribed under any law or rule.
68. The Senior Civil Judges or Judicial Magistrates shall conduct monthly surprise visits of the police stations and Jails, with prior intimation to the worthy District and Sessions Judge. They shall inspect the condition of lock ups, case property, and other relevant material, and shall report any illegality or irregularity to the Chairperson of the Criminal Justice Coordination Committee. The office of the Registrar shall formulate the SOPs for these visits within two months.
69. Sections 154 to 173 CrPC are mandatory provisions. Their violation is not a mere irregularity but a breach of statutory duty that attracts penal, departmental, and constitutional consequences. The CJCC, Judicial Magistrates, and trial courts shall monitor compliance and, in case of any violation, invoke the relevant law.
70. Delay in submission of records shall be curbed through strict invocation of sections 166(1), 175 and 186(2) of the PPC against any public servant who, through negligence, misconduct or wilful
149 363. Remarks respecting demeanour of witness. When a Sessions Judge or Magistrate has recorded the evidence of a witness, he shall also record such remarks (if any) as he thinks material respecting the demeanour of such witness whilst under examination.
disregard of law, fails to comply with mandatory duties. Certified copies of the record, duly verified by the SHO or the Investigating Officer, may be relied upon for bail and Superdari proceedings to avoid unnecessary delay.
71. The practice of issuing Superdari orders subject to the satisfaction of the SHO is to be discontinued, as is the practice of requiring the satisfaction of the in charge or Manager of Women Crisis Center/Darul Aman or the SHO in release orders. The satisfaction of the court alone shall be expressly recorded, so as to streamline procedure and ensure convenience to litigants.
72. During the course of trial, the trial court has to ensure to conclude the trial before the completion of the statutory period as provided for the grant of bail under the third proviso to Section 497 CrPC and the trial court has to demonstrate extra vigilance at least four months before the completion of such statutory period by putting the trial of accused on a fast-track so as to ensure that the trial of the accused is completed before the completion of the statutory period available under the law for the grant of bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.
73. After the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court in case of acquittal of an accused has to record reasons that as to whether the said acquittal has been made due to the false charge leveled by the complainant or due to the poor and faulty investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer or due to the inefficiency of the Prosecutor and in case the acquittal is being made due to the false charge of the complainant, then the trial court has to initiate proceedings against the complainant under Section 476 read with 193 PPC and all other penal provisions, and in case the trial court is of the opinion that the acquittal is being made due to the poor and faulty investigation of the I.O, then it has to proceed against him under section 118 of The KP Police Act, 2017 read with Sections 166 and 167 and 217 of PPC and If the trial court forms the view that the acquittal is attributable to the inefficiency of
the prosecutor, it shall recommend proceedings against the prosecutor in accordance with the relevant law.
74. If, after trial, the court finds the charge false, vexatious, or frivolous, it shall, while recording acquittal, consider awarding compensation to the accused under section 250 CrPC, where appropriate.
75. Henceforth, all courts shall not grant adjournments on the ground of a strike or boycott by lawyers, as the same is not a valid ground for adjournment of judicial proceedings.150
76. Where defence counsel repeatedly seeks adjournments, remains absent, or is on strike, the court shall not wait for, or adjourn, the case on that ground; the accused may be given one final opportunity to engage alternate counsel with a warning of no further adjournment, failing which State funded defence counsel may be appointed under section 340(1) CrPC and Article 10-A, and the court shall proceed on the available record and evidence.151 District and Sessions Judges and Additional District and Sessions Judges shall hold meetings with local Bar Associations to sensitize them regarding their role in the administration of justice, and where the Public Prosecutor is present the trial court shall proceed without waiting for the complainant counsel.
77. In offences against the human body causing death or hurt, the complainant, the victim, or, where applicable, the legal heirs of the deceased shall be notified in trial and bail matters and afforded a right of hearing152 through counsel, subject to the condition that this right shall not be used to cause delay and only one opportunity shall be given to engage private counsel if desired; in all other offences, the court shall proceed after hearing the Prosecutor and shall not adjourn
150 2025 PHC 8586, 2025 PHC 4836, 2022 PCrLJ 779 Lah, 2017 MLD 535, 2015 YLR 47,
2015 YLR 2282, 2023 MLD 1260
151 Abdul Ghaffar Vs The State (2011 SCMR 23), Ghulam Rasool Shah Vs The State (2011 SCMR 735).
152 Mst Sabiha V. The State (2025 PHC 101), 2011 MLD 1399, 2009 YLR 1818 Pesh, 2004
PcrLJ 968, 2001 YLR 2056, 1999 SCMR 2203, PLD 1997 Pesh 173, PLD 1993 Pesh 151.
merely for non-availability of the complainant or complainant counsel, though if such counsel is present the court may also hear them.
78. The courts shall conclude trials expeditiously and shall not permit delay to defeat the ends of justice. All lawful coercive measures, including warrants of arrest, attachment of salary, blocking of CNIC, proceedings under sections 174 and 186(2) PPC, cancellation of bail, proceedings under section 87/88 CrPC and other measures highlighted in this judgment, shall be employed against any responsible party to ensure progress of proceedings. The courts shall remain uninfluenced by delaying tactics or pressure from any quarter.
79. Where an accused admitted to bail subsequently absconds, fails to attend the trial court, or violates bail conditions, the trial court is competent to cancel bail and issue non-bailable warrants to secure arrest. If the accused is declared a Proclaimed Offender or non- bailable warrants are issued, such declaration or issuance shall operate as ipso facto cancellation of bail.153
80. Non-production of case property shall be effectively addressed by invoking sections 166(1) and 186(2) of the PPC and section 118 of the KP Police Act 2017 against all delinquent officials.
81. False and frivolous litigation should be strongly discouraged through the imposition of substantial fines and by invoking section 250 and 476 of the CrPC, along with sections 182 and 211 of the PPC. The trial court or appellate court as the case may be, shall record reasons for not invoking these sections in the judgment.
82. Every Criminal Justice Coordination Committee shall devise a district policy to ensure speedy and expeditious disposal of criminal cases.
83. Pakistan is not a common law country as Pakistan has a written constitution and statutory laws. Therefore, the constitution and laws shall be strictly followed in criminal justice system. In criminal
153 2019 SCMR 1641, 2008 YLR 908.
jurisprudence, precedent operates only as a guiding aid and not as a rigid command, for a rule stated in one case cannot be applied universally. Each criminal matter turns on its own facts and circumstances, which seldom mirror those of the case in which the earlier dictum was rendered.154 As held in Arbab Tasleem,155 in the system of criminal dispensation of justice it is a well-recognized legal principle that there is no universal rule of application, which can be followed or made applicable in each case as a rule of thumb.
84. The prosecution is not required to prove its case to absolute certainty; proof beyond reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all doubt; every doubt is not a reasonable doubt. At the same time, this does not license disregard of mandatory procedure; each omitted mandatory requirement amounts to misconduct and may constitute an offence if willful or dishonest.
85. In the modern era, where science and technology are rapidly advancing, investigation agencies, the prosecution and the courts must give due weight to circumstantial evidence and assess it in accordance with settled legal principles. Human testimony may be fallible, whereas circumstances, when duly proved, may provide a more objective account. However, modern technological evidence, including audio recordings, video footage, CCTV data and other digital material often described as silent witnesses, now carries added risks of manipulation, editing and fabrication due to increasing use of AI. Such material cannot, therefore, be accepted at face value and must be scrutinized for authenticity, integrity, lawful collection and proper linkage with the occurrence. Courts must assess such evidence only in strict compliance with the protocols laid down in Ishtiaq
154 Book. Precedent in Pakistani Legal System by Dr.Muhammad Munir , PLD 2025 SC 572, PLD 2024 SC 515, 2021 SCMR 873, 2016 SCMR 1401, 2002 SCMR 32, 2001 SCMR
1334, 1998 SCMR 891, 1998 SCMR 1807.
155 PLD 2010 Supreme Court 642.
Mirza156 and affirmed in Zahir Jaffer,157 and the prosecution must collect, preserve, and transmit it to the competent laboratory in accordance with prescribed procedure to ensure authenticity and probative value.
86. Courts should discourage applications seeking transfer of cases that are based on mala fide, motivated by ulterior considerations, or lacking any factual or legal substance. Where such applications contain false, frivolous, or scandalous allegations, the court should take appropriate action in accordance with law.
6. Directions and Recommendations for Respondents
Under the Constitution of Pakistan, the principle of trichotomy of powers governs the constitutional framework, whereby the legislature, executive, and judiciary function as independent organs with clearly delineated spheres of authority. Courts, therefore, ordinarily refrain from directing the legislature to act upon judicial recommendations. Nonetheless, where a recommendation is grounded in the enforcement of fundamental rights and issued in furtherance of the larger interest of justice, it carries substantial constitutional weight. Being the interpreter and guardian of the Constitution and the law, the judiciary is entitled to expect that such recommendations will be accorded due respect and earnest consideration, and, where warranted, implemented to secure the rights and welfare of citizens.158
1. A substantial majority of pending cases, nearly eighty five percent, are before the district judiciary, which demonstrates the pressing need for focused reforms at the district level. Vacant posts should be filled immediately, and recruitment examinations for Civil Judges-cum-
156 Ishtiaq Ahmad Mirza vs Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 SC 675)
157 Zahir Zakir Jaffar v. The State through A.G. Islamabad (2025 SCP 220)
158 Jurists Foundation V. Federal Govt (PLD 2020 SC 1), 1999 SCMR 1379; 2006 SCMR
145; PLD 2008 SC 673; 2013 SCMR 203, PLD 2011 SC 811; PLD 2014 SC 668, 2020
PLD Lah 229.
Judicial Magistrates should be held annually subject to availability of vacancies.
2. The Government, particularly the Worthy DIG (Security), shall ensure adequate protection and security for all judicial officers, whether posted in courts or on ex cadre assignments across the province, and the Worthy Registrar of this Court shall immediately take up the matter with the relevant authorities; in districts with an adverse law and order situation, additional security measures shall be implemented for both court premises and judicial officers. The notifications already issued in this respect shall be reviewed immediately.
3. Effective implementation of ADR mechanism is essential, along with amendments to address cases where parties do not wish to proceed through saleesin. In such cases, the ADR law and section 345 CrPC may be amended to empower trial and appellate courts to adopt appropriate ADR methods directly, without referring the matter to saleesin.
4. The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) and information technology (IT) is essential to improve case management and judicial efficiency; therefore, all stakeholders shall develop a comprehensive strategy to integrate AI and IT into judicial processes, ensure systematic data collection for policy making, and promptly identify bottlenecks. All cases shall be fully digitalised from institution to disposal to enable close monitoring of delays and reliable decision making, and data analysis tools with district level dashboards shall be established to track the life cycle of each case, including a red, orange, and green alarm system in which red flags cases requiring urgent intervention, with the objective of eliminating red indicators so that only green signals remain across the system.
5. Continuous capacity building of all stakeholders of the criminal justice system is necessary, including judges, prosecutors, investigating officers, SHOs, Moharirs, and medical officers. The
Provincial Government shall ensure adequate and regular funding to the KP Judicial Academy, the Prosecution Academy, and Police Training Academies for conducting such trainings on a sustained basis. The KP Judicial Academy, in collaboration with the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through the Chief Secretary, shall coordinate and facilitate these trainings for all stakeholders. The curriculum shall include modern technology and the latest developments in criminal justice jurisprudence, whether arising from statutes, judicial precedents, or academic research.
6. The PJC shall review, examine, revise, modify, and update the training modules of the police training centers, as referred to in footnote No. 33, to align them with evolving societal needs and to enhance investigative skills of Police.
7. The Witness Protection Board and Witness Protection Unit under the KP Witness Protection Act, 2021 shall be fully activated and made operational to ensure witness safety, security, and confidence and thereby protect the integrity of the criminal justice process; the Act, presently limited to heinous and terrorism offences, shall be broadened to extend protection to witnesses in all offences. Furthermore, the KP Witness Protection Rules 2025 may be implemented within three months positively.
8. The Secretary, Ministry of Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights, together with the Director General Prosecution Department, shall translate the investigation handbook159 into Urdu within three months and circulate it among all prosecutors, investigating officers, and SHOs across the province, and shall also share it with all academies providing training to prosecutors, police, and other law enforcement agencies. The said handbook shall be updated annually, as directed by the apex Court, by the Director General Prosecution, the Provincial Police Officer Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and the Secretary,
159 https://rsilpak.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/criminal-investigation- handbook_pakistan_rsil.pdf
Ministry of Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights, by incorporating newly enacted laws, the latest jurisprudence of the superior Courts, and new or modern investigation techniques.
9. An independent forensic science agency, with satellite regional offices at each divisional headquarters on the model of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, shall be established with separate statutory status to ensure quality, authenticity, and timely processing and submission of forensic reports. The forensic laboratories shall function wholly independent of the operational and investigation branches and shall be run by qualified experts. Necessary amendments in relevant laws shall be made to secure the complete institutional and functional independence of the existing FSL, staff shortages therein shall be addressed through fresh recruitment, and the proposed FSL project shall be expedited with funds released without delay, to ensure the early and effective functioning of the criminal justice system.
10. In view of the increased caseload on each Investigating Officer, greater prosecutorial involvement, and the workload of the Forensic Science Laboratory, it is proposed that for offences punishable with ten years or more, the challan period under section 173 CrPC be extended to 25 days through appropriate amendment, to ensure sufficient time for completion of investigation.
11. Effective policing is a sine qua non for the meaningful enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 9, 10, 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. The Provincial Government is confined to the formulation of high policy and superintendence, and shall not, directly or indirectly, interfere with operational command or encroach upon the autonomy and independence of the police hierarchy in the discharge of its lawful functions.160
12. Necessary amendments may be introduced in section 182 PPC to make the offence cognizable. It is further recommended that section
160 Anita Turab case (Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi Vs Federation of Pakistan: PLD 2013 Supreme Court 195), 2018 PLD karachi 8.
250 CrPC be amended by inserting the word "shall" in place of "May" and by enhancing the prescribed fine to ensure effective deterrence.
13. Section 476 of the CrPC may be amended to include within its scope the offences mentioned in section 195, subsection (1), clause (a) of CrPC. It is further recommended that sections 166(1) and 166(2) of PPC be incorporated into this provision so that proceedings for these offences may also be initiated through the mechanism provided under section 476 CrPC.
14. It is recommended that section 344 CrPC be strengthened by amendment to deter unnecessary adjournments by providing for mandatory costs, with a fixed minimum amount, against the party whose conduct causes delay, payable to the affected party, attending witnesses, or to be deposited in the state treasury, or as otherwise directed by the court. The amended provision should further clarify that adjournments shall not be granted on account of absence of private counsel for the complainant, nonappearance of the accused where counsel is present, or on grounds of strike, boycott, or counsel engagement in another court.
15. It is recommended that section 510, CrPC be amended to include DNA experts and cybercrime/digital forensics experts, including IT/AI specialists appointed or notified by the Government, so that their reports may be admissible without personal appearance, subject to the discretion of court to summon them in the interest of justice.
16. The probation officers shall maintain effective oversight, visit jails on a regular basis, identify cases that are fit for probation, and point out such cases before the competent court for consideration and submit his report in monthly meeting of CJCC.
17. The scribe who prepares the FIR, namely the Moharrir or station clerk, should preferably be a person having knowledge of law and, ordinarily, should not be below the rank of Sub-Inspector. Necessary
arrangements in this respect shall be made through amendment of the relevant laws and rules.
18. The police officers and SHOs who are involved in registering performance or progress FIRs shall be proceeded against in accordance with law for misusing their authority, misappropriating state resources, and causing unnecessary waste of the time of the police, prosecution and courts.
19. In view of the principles reflected in Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules 1934, and keeping in mind common sense, natural justice, and the right to fair trial, the Provincial Government shall fully and effectively separate the Investigation Wing from the Operations Wing from police station level up to AIG Investigation, with full administrative and financial autonomy, to ensure fair, impartial, and transparent investigation. An independent investigation cadre shall be created and all future appointments shall be made exclusively to that cadre; Investigating Officers shall be graduates or possess equivalent legal qualification, shall not be below the rank of Sub Inspector. All matters relating to postings and transfers, recording of PERS and ACRs, and initiation of disciplinary proceedings of the investigation branch shall fall within the hierarchy of the investigation branch and shall not remain under the authority of the DPO or RPO; at the district level, such postings, transfers, and ACRs shall be under the authority of SP Investigation, and section 26 of the KP Police Act 2017 may be amended accordingly. The insertion of Rule 25.17A in the Police Rules, 1934, through Notification No. 755/Legal dated 16.03.2017, requires strict implementation and further refinements to ensure investigations are fully independent.
20. The Police Department shall adopt and scale technology-based policing tools (CCTV integration, body-worn cameras where feasible, GIS mapping, data analytics, and other lawful surveillance tools) with SOPs for privacy, storage, and evidentiary integrity.
21. The Government shall ensure that prosecutors are provided with adequate office space, facilities, and resources to enable the effective performance of their duties.
22. The Government shall ensure the timely and adequate allocation of financial resources to the Operational, Preventive, and Investigation Branches in all districts, so as to enable them to effectively discharge their statutory functions. Such provision shall, inter alia, include the supply of standardized and well-equipped investigation kits to each Investigating Officer, the availability of duly maintained investigation vans, and the provision of all other requisite tools, equipment, and logistical support essential for the prompt, efficient, and lawful conduct of investigations. The said resources shall further facilitate the proper collection, handling, preservation, and transmission of evidence, in accordance with the applicable legal framework and best investigative practices, thereby strengthening the credibility, transparency, and overall efficacy of the criminal justice process.
23. The worthy Inspector General of Police is hereby directed to formally submit a comprehensive and detailed demand for the provision of adequate financial resources to the Provincial Government, through the worthy Secretary Finance, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The worthy Secretary Finance is, in turn, directed to duly consider the said demand and to allocate and release a sufficient and reasonable amount of funds for the intended purpose, in accordance with law and applicable financial rules. A progress report detailing the steps taken in compliance with the aforesaid directions shall be submitted to this Court through the Additional Registrar (Judicial) for perusal of the Bench in Chambers.
24. Respondents are directed to undertake complete digitisation of the criminal justice system within one year. Where statutory support is required, the concerned departments shall initiate appropriate amendments through the legislature. The process shall include, at a
minimum, introduction of an e-FIR system (online FIR mechanism) from the stage of registration of the case, digital recording of the entire investigation through audio and video technology, submission of challans in digital form, and digital recording of judicial proceedings. CCTV cameras shall be installed in all police stations to ensure transparency, monitoring and accountability. The Government shall also accelerate digitization of criminal records (accused persons, absconders, habitual offenders) and ensure secure, searchable databases with defined access protocols.
25. It is recommended that the CJCC161 be reconstituted by amending sections 74, 75, and 76 of the Police Act, 2017 to include all stakeholders162 as members. The chairperson shall have power to co- opt any person for meetings. The Committee shall also be empowered to ensure implementation of its decisions and directions.
26. It is recommended that the Provincial Justice Committee (PJC) be strengthened, or that a Provincial Criminal Judicial Committee (PCJC) be constituted through appropriate amendments to the KP Police Act, 2017, so that these bodies may serve as empowered and accountable oversight forums. Its meetings shall be convened monthly without fail, and in each meeting it shall review and monitor the implementation of this judgment.
27. It is directed that the directions and orders laid down in the cases of Mehboob Hassan,163 Haider Ali,164 Salman Akram Raja,165 Muhammad Ramzan166 and Ali Haider167 shall be implemented in
161 Criminal Justice Coordination Committee
162 Deputy Commissioner, FIA, Excise, Taxation and Narcotics Department, CTD, In- charge/Manager women Crisis centers/Darul Amans, DHO, Medical Superintendents of each hospital, Social Welfare Officer, Member from civil society, Human Rights bodies, etc.
163 2024 SCMR 757
164 2015 SCMR 1724
165 2013 SCMR 203
166 2024 SCMR 1085
167 PLD 2021 SC 362
letter and spirit, with immediate effect and within the shortest possible time.
28. As apprised to the Court by the Inspector General of Police and the Director General Prosecution during arguments, a pilot project has been prepared for implementation at Peshawar and is presently pending approval before the worthy Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department. Under the said pilot project, the operational, investigation, and prosecution wings of the police shall be distinctly separated at all tiers, and dedicated prosecutors shall be assigned to ensure effective and independent prosecution. In view thereof, it is directed that the said pilot project shall be approved and initiated at the earliest possible opportunity, without any further delay. The Provincial Government is further directed to ensure the provision of requisite funds, infrastructure, manpower, and other necessary resources to facilitate the effective and smooth implementation of the said project, in accordance with law with a view to alleviating the hardships and grievances faced by the citizens of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
29. It is required that the Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights Department review all laws defining offences, first, to address the anomalies highlighted in paragraph No. 117 and, second, to identify overlapping laws or laws creating jurisdictional confusion, and to propose appropriate amendments to the Government for consolidation and clarification.
30. Any direction or observation in the judgment promoting criminal justice reform, though not specifically enumerated hereinabove, shall also be implemented, and any argument advanced or report submitted in these petitions that supports positive reform may be considered for future policy making and legislation.
133. Last but not the least, a state must be vested with sufficient authority to ensure the protection of its citizens, the enforcement of the
law, and the maintenance of public order. Yet the conferment of such authority inevitably carries the potential for excess. It is therefore imperative that the exercise of state power be strictly circumscribed by constitutional and legal limits, thereby ensuring that the State remains accountable and that all authority is exercised within the framework of law. Only through such restraints can the equilibrium between effective governance and the safeguarding of individual rights be maintained and it is the judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution and the rule of law that preserves and upholds this essential balance. Every right, being a legally recognised interest, when infringed, is not merely a private wrong; it is a constitutional test of the moral authority of the State and the legitimacy of its institutions. It unsettles the social covenant embodied in the Constitution, the foundational bargain by which power is entrusted and obedience is justified. Patriotism, though ideally unconditional, stands shaken when fundamental rights are violated and the resulting distrust paves the way for anarchy. It also unsettles the submission of citizens to State authority, because such submission is conditional, given only in return for protection, security, and justice under the law. It is high time we remind the State and its institutions of their duties and responsibilities; without fulfilling them, the State cannot prosper or achieve its ideals.
134. Before parting with this judgment, the Court records appreciation for the assistance and input provided by the parties and stakeholders through written submissions and oral arguments, and for the support of the Research Wing of this Court. The respondents shall earnestly implement the recommendations herein, and all stakeholders shall comply with the guidelines set out in this judgment. The PJC and CJCC shall review the implementation of this judgment at each meeting and call for relevant data when required. Both petitions are allowed on the above terms. Copies of this judgment shall be circulated to all respondents, the district judiciary, police, prosecution, medical officers,
the Prosecution Academy, the Judicial Academy, and all Police Training Academies for guidance and compliance.
Announced
15.01.2026 Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
J U D G E
Sd/-
J U D G E
Sd/-
J U D G E
Sd/-
J U D G E
(L.B) Justice S. M. Attique Shah, HCJ, Mr. Justice Syed Arshad Ali HJ, Mr. Justice Sahibzada Asadullah HJ, Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan HJ & Mr. Justice Salah- ud-Din HJ)
0 Comments