PHC refers 17 missing persons' cases to CIED

Court suspends SHO's sentence in separate case

PESHAWAR:

The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Monday referred 17 out of 22 petitions related to missing persons to the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances.

The bench headed by Chief Justice SM Atiq Shah heard the petitions filed by families of the missing persons. During the proceedings, Additional Advocate General Nauman Kakakhel, Additional Attorney General Sanaullah, and other relevant officials appeared before the court.

The court was informed that the commission on missing persons is actively functioning in Peshawar and has been hearing similar cases. Considering this, the bench directed that 17 of the petitions be forwarded to the commission for further action.

The court disposed of two petitions after the recovery of the missing individuals, while one petition was withdrawn by the applicant. Additionally, the court ordered registration of an FIR in one case, observing that the petitioner has the right to file a complaint against any person they suspect to be involved in the disappearance.

Separately, (PHC) has suspended the one-year imprisonment sentence of Chamkani Station House Officer (SHO) Javed Marwat, who was convicted by a lower court on charges of misuse of authority in a narcotics case. The court also issued notices to the concerned authorities for their response.

The case was heard by Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, Justice SM Atiq Shah. During the hearing, the counsel for SHO Marwat informed the court that a sessions court had, on October 13, sentenced his client to one year in prison along with a fine of Rs50,000.

The conviction stemmed from allegations that the SHO had implicated two suspects in a drug-related case. However, the lower court later acquitted both suspects due to insufficient evidence, and subsequently, under Section 32 of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Narcotics Act 2019, issued a show-cause notice to the police officer.

Following the notice, the sessions court handed down the sentence without a proper trial, the defense argued, adding that the punishment was in violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The lawyer further contended that an officer cannot be penalized merely because the accused in a case are acquitted on the basis of doubt.

After hearing the arguments, the high court admitted the appeal for regular hearing, suspended the sentence, and sought replies from the concerned authorities.