2026 PLP 118 (MLD)
Muhammad Asif — Petitioner Versus The State and 2 another — Respondents
| Citation | 2026 PLP 118 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Muhammad Asif — Petitioner Versus The State and 2 another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 118 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2026 PLP 118 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 118 (MLD) (Muhammad Asif — Petitioner Versus The State and 2 another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tahir Aslam Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 540
Scope
Witness sought to be called not a material witness
Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/accused to summon Inquiry Officer (Police Officer) as a Court witness to prove that the lady Investigating Officer (I.O.) conducted defective investigation and Inquiry Officer recommended her case for major penalty
Record showed that the Trial Court recorded the statement of I.O. who was also cross-examined by the defence counsel on the same day
After about nineteen days of said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under S.540, Cr.P.C., for summoning Inquiry Officer (Police Officer ) as a Court Witness who conducted the departmental inquiry against I.O. and recommended her case for major penalty
To summon an inquiry officer as a witness against the Investigating Officer of a criminal case, who allegedly conducted defective investigation to give benefit to the accused, was not a material witness in the present case registered under S.377-B, P.P.C, as he had only conducted the inquiry and even if the statement of said witness was recorded that would not be beneficial to the prosecution
Even otherwise, the criminal cases cannot be decided on the whims and capricious of either of the parties
Furthermore, the departmental inquiry proceedings have no nexus/ relevance with the trial of a criminal case and do not synchronize with Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
Thus, the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner
No illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order had been noticed
Criminal revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Through the instant criminal revision petition under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. read with section 29 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, the petitioner has challenged the vires of order dated 24.05.2025 pursuant whereto the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under section 540, Cr.P.C. to summon Additional S.P. Qazi Umar Farooq in the evidence to prove that Khalida Parveen, ASI/Investigating Officer conducted defective investigation and he recommended her major penalty.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Perusal of record shows that the learned trial Court recorded the statement of Khalida Parveen, ASI/I.O. on 05.05.2025 and she was also cross-examined by the learned defence counsel on the same day. On 24.05.2025, the petitioner filed an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. for summoning Qazi Umar Farooq, Additional S.P. as a Court witness who conducted the departmental inquiry against Khalida Parveen, ASI/I.O. and recommended her major penalty.
4. The petitioner is desirous to summon a witness who conducted inquiry against Khalida Parveen, ASI/I.O. Admittedly, to summon a witness/an inquiry officer to prove that the departmental inquiry proceedings were conducted against the Investigating Officer of a criminal case who allegedly conducted defective investigation to give benefit to the accused is not a material witness in the present case registered under section 337-B, P.P.C as he has only conducted the inquiry and even if the statement of this witness is recorded that would not beneficial to the prosecution. Even otherwise, the criminal cases cannot be decided on the whims and capricious of either of the parties. Furthermore, the departmental inquiry proceedings have no nexus/relevance with the trial of a criminal case and does not synchronize with criminal procedure code. Thus, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we have no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, thus, there is no substance in the criminal revision in hand and the same is hereby dismissed. MQ/M-192/L Revision dismissed.