Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1863 of 1963, decided on 11th March 1964.

A‑Abuse of process of Court‑Inordinate delay (11 years) in disposal of criminal case‑Proceedings quashed.

Malik Fazal Karim v. The State P L D 1957 Lah. 837 ; Muhammad Hussain v. The State P L D 1959 Lah. 322 and Ghulam Qadir Khan v. The State P L D 1963 Lah. 32 ref.

Dr. Javaid Iqbal for Petitioner.

Muhammad Akbar for the State.

Date of hearing : 11th March 1964.

The petitioner was arrested for offences under sections 409 and 468, P. P. C., on the 14th of May 1959. The allegations against him were that the petitioner who was entrusted to pay Rs. 416‑7‑0 to twelve employees of the Ordnance Depot, Lahore, showed payment of the amount to the employees on the 1st of April 1958, however, with the exception of Ghulam Qadir sweeper who admitted to have received his payment, the rest of the employees denied having received the amount. Thus he was alleged to have embezzled a sum of Rs. 372‑7‑0. The investiga tion was completed by the 19th of June 1959, and the case was forwarded in Court for trial. Since then uptil now no evidence has been recorded. On the 8th of July 1961, the case came up before the Additional District Magistrate (Special Judge), Lahore; but he adjourned the case as the case could not be tried by his as the petitioner was a Central Government employee, and he consequently transferred the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Lahore. The case came up before the Sessions Judge, Lahore, (Senior Special Judge) on the 18th of September 1961, but none appeared on behalf of the State. The case was adjourned to 6th of December 1961. On the 6th of December 1961, the particulars of the offence were explained to the petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. However, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses could not be recorded because certain documents had not been brought from the Ordnance Depot, Lahore Cantonment. The case was adjourned to the 22nd of February 1962. On that date the case was again adjourned and the petitioner was told that it would come up on some date of which he would be informed. Since then no date has been fixed in the case. A report of the Prosecuting Inspec tor dated the 9th of August 1963, which has been placed on record, shows that the proceedings in this case had not started because no Special Judge has been appointed for the trial of the cases relating to the employees of the Central Government. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has prayed for the quashing of the proceedings due to inordinate delay in the disposal of his case.

The other day I had another similar matter before me in which there were about 20 cases pending against certain accused persons for the last over eleven years and in spite of an order of the High Court in 1958, that the matter be expedited, none of those cases had been completed. This delay in the disposal of criminal cases is most unfortunate and shows that the concern ed authorities are treating these proceedings in an absolutely irresponsible manner. The only course open to the High Court in such delayed proceedings is to quash the proceedings. This has been the consistent view of this Court. Malik Fazal Karim v. The State (P L D 1957 Lah. 837), Muhammad Hussain v. The State (P L D 1959 Lah. 322) and Ghulam Qadir Khan v. The State (P L D 1963 Lah. 32) are some of the authorities which lay down in unambiguous terms that in cases where the criminal trials are delayed the High Court will step in and quash the pro ceedings. It is really painful to see that persons who might have committed offences thus get away only because of the fault of either the concerned Courts or in some cases because of the delay of the Government in appointing proper tribunals for the trials of such cases. In the 20 cases that I have referred to above, it would have been most appropriate to appoint a Special Magistrate to deal with those cases and try them from day‑to day. I am surprised why such a course is not being adopted. In P L D 1963 Lah. 32 the proceedings were quashed because they were pending investigation for a period of about eight years. Thus even the delay in the investigation was held to be a sufficient cause for quashing the proceedings. In these authorities and innumerable other authorities it has been remark ed that inordinate delay in the conduct of criminal eases cannot be tolerated and the High Court will quash the proceedings because it amounts to grave abuse of the process of law. In some of the cases the witnesses for the prosecution and the accused are dead. Some of the witnesses become untraceable. The accused is handicapped in producing his defence after such a long period. The law requires that a criminal trial should be concluded without inordinate delay. The present cast is eminent ly one in which the delay in its disposal amounts to grave abuse of the process of law. I would, therefore, quash these proceedings. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Law Secretary to Government of West Pakistan, and the Law Secretary to the Government of Pakistan for information.

K. B. A.

Proceedings quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.