Peshawar: The Peshawar High Court has sought detailed reports from different stakeholders and forms a larger bench to listen to review the flaws in the criminal justice system and seek reform.
The seat, composed of PHC Chief Justice Sm Attique Shah and Justice Mohammad Ijaz Khan, directed the KP Inspector General Warden to submit a detailed report on the insufficient total number of prisons currently in prisons in prisons.
The bench asked several questions for stakeholders and sought answers within two weeks.
The judge also includes various stakeholders who are necessary in the petition, including the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Law and Justice and Human Rights, the Law and Judicial Committee of Pakistan, the Director General of the KP Judicial College, the Additional IGP (CTD) and the Provincial Health Secretary of the Ministry of Counter-Terrorism (CTD).
Develop certain, few details or questions about the trial of prisoners
The judge heard two petitions for public interest, respectively, filed by citizen Asifullah and senior lawyer Shabbir Hussain Gigyani.
In its 20-page detailed order, the bench announced that it was composed of PHC Chief Justice Sm Attique Shah, Justice Syed Arshad Ali, Justice Sahibzada Asadullah, Justice Mohammad Ijaz Khan and Justice Salahud Din, forming a larger judge. Week or October.
Barrister Amirullah Khan Chamkani served as petitioner Asifullah, noting that the CJ in the KP was almost collapsed due to structural and procedural failures.
He said these flaws together lead to systematic violations of fundamental rights, especially the right to a fair trial guarantees the 10A’s commitment. constitution.
He said people across the province are losing their precious lives, honors, dignity, respect and movable and immovable property, but due to serious flaws in the judiciary, including false influence, they have not received proper justice. Weak investigation, poor supervision by district attorneys, and flawed sentences for trials.
Similarly, the petitioner Shabbir Gigyani has sought the order of the court to ensure that under Article 173 or Criminal Procedure Law (CRPC) and Rules 6 and 7 or National judicial policy2009, violations of Articles 4, 9 and L0-A of the Constitution.
Several lawyers, including Mohammad Nisar Khan, Mohammad Sarer Khan, Sahibzada Riazatul Haq, Syed Akber Ali Shah and Tafele Khan Afridi, have good litigation in criminal law.
In addition to defense attorney Shah Faisal Uthmankhel and other advocates Inam Khan Yousafzai, Director-General Robin Haider Bukhari, also appeared in the case.
The substitute notes: “As the Constitutional Court of the Province, this Court is responsible for any violation of fundamental rights and any deviation or negligence of the laws relating to the criminal justice system.”
According to the aid, the court raised about 20 questions, provided by attorneys on behalf of the petitioner and respondents, legal officials, general prosecution directors and all other stakeholders.
Some questions are: Is it denied that the police would be liable for fines and compensation consequences to register in cognizable cases and subsequently through an application under Section 22-A-A CRPC (Peace Judge)?
Does a false, frivolous or exaggerated FIR or complaint have liable for the complainant and the police officers who promote such litigation and for the complainant and the police? Are flawed investigations, inadequate prosecution supervision and delays or improper application of laws and procedures by criminal courts contributing to the low conviction rates in the country, especially in KP province?
Is the police’s investigation department completely independent of the operational department to effectively and independently perform its statutory duties? Are the existing entity and procedural criminal laws in KP sufficient to meet modern needs, especially in terms of the power of CJ, or do they need to be revised?
Prostitutes have any appropriate and effective supervision mechanisms to hold various stakeholders of CJ, such as judicial, police, prosecution, investigative officers, Medico legal officials and prison authorities, responsible for failure to comply with statutory duties and other mandatory provisions?
Are there independent forensic laboratories in KP and have any measurements been taken to establish the same or other measurements? Whether the prosecution is performing the statutory duties envisaged in its provisions KP Prosecution Services (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act2005, including but not limited to the obligations of pre-execution supervision?
Under Article 173 CRPC, failure to submit a challenge within the statutory period of the execution litigation constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights of the offenders guaranteed under Articles 4, 9 and 10-A of the Constitution, and whether such archives have punitive or criminal consequences? Is there any remedy to be provided for criminal trials within the statutory period and if there is no trial within the designated period?
The bench also instructed DG five parties to submit detailed information on current cases before prosecuting the department; the number of district attorneys (DPPs) who have taken departmental litigation against poor supervision and lower conviction rates; the number of cases recommended for police investigation officers and their results in relevant districts; ETC.
Similarly, multiple questions were raised to the KP Forensic Science Bureau, provincial health ministers and DIG investigations on the bench and directed them to submit their respective reports based on the above issues.
Posted at Dawn on September 21, 2025
