21/09/2025
PHC larger bench to deliberate on reforming the criminal justice system:
On 20 September 2025, the Peshawar High Court sought detailed reports from different stakeholders and constituted a larger bench for hearing the pleas highlighting flaws in the criminal justice system and seeking reforms in it.
A bench consisting of PHC Chief Justice SM Attique Shah and Justice Mohammad Ijaz Khan directed KP Inspector General of Prisons to submit a detailed report regarding the total number of under-trial prisoners presently languishing in jails throughout the province.
Some of the questions are:
Whether the refusal of police to register an FIR in cognizable cases and its subsequent registration through an application under Section 22-A CrPC (justice of peace) renders police liable to penal and compensatory consequences?
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?
Whether defective investigation, inadequate prosecutorial oversight, delays, or improper application of law and procedure by criminal courts are contributing factors to the low conviction rate in the country, particularly in the province of KP?
Whether the investigation branch of the police fully independent of the operational branch to effectively and independently perform its statutory duties?
Whether the existing substantive and procedural criminal laws in force in KP are sufficient to meet the needs of modern times, particularly with reference to strengthening of CJS, or whether they need revision?
Whether there exists any proper and effective oversight mechanism to hold various stakeholders of CJS, 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?
Whether an independent forensic laboratory exists in KP, and if not, whether any measures have been taken to establish the same or otherwise?
Whether the prosecution is fulfilling its statutory duties as envisaged under the KP Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2005, including but not limited to the duty of prosecutorial supervision?
Whether the failure of prosecution to submit Challans within the statutory period of 14 days, as mandated under Section 173 CrPC, amounts to a violation of 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?
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?
The bench also directed the DG prosecution to submit details about the current pendency of cases before the prosecution department; the number of district public prosecutors (DPPs) against whom departmental action was taken for poor oversight and low conviction rate; the number of cases in which DPPs had recommended action against investigating officers to relevant district police officers and their outcome; etc.
Similarly, the bench also put multiple questions to KP Forensic Science Agency, the provincial health secretary, and the DIG investigation, directing them to submit their respective reports in the light of the said questions.
