Find a Lawyer

ADNAN PRINCE versus THE STATE THROUGH P.G., PUNJAB

ection Sections 497 - Code of Conduct (XLV of I860), Sections 295A, 295B and 295C, defamatory remarks on sacrilegious insults of any class religion or religious beliefs, copy of the Quran, etc. Etc. to use. Prophet Akram, Grant - more than two years delayed at the end of the trial trial - records show that three years and three months have passed since the arrest of the accused - delay in trial fraud is primarily for prosecution or court Is caused by Myself - Even if the defendant's plea seeking his lawyer's absence or absence was dismissed, his total detention at trial was more than two years only. Despite a three-year and three-month probation period headed by only one person, the witness was recorded during the trial - the instant trial was the right of every accused, therefore, in the trial of such cases. Unnecessary delay would be equivalent to denial of justice - the defendant filed a case for grant of bail, leading to the non-termination of his trial. Minor delay guaranteed [PP 149, 150, 151] A, B & E

P L D 2017 Supreme Court 147

Present: Dost Muhammad Khan,

/ Qazi Faez Isa and Faisal Arab, JJ

ADNAN PRINCE—Petitioner

versus

The STATE through P.G., Punjab and another—Respondents

Criminal Petition No. 1232 of 2016, decided on 1st February, 2017.

(Against the order dated 2-10-2016 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Misc. No.7923-B/2016).

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

—S. 497—-Penal Code (XLV of I860), Ss.295-A, 295-B & 295-C-Maliciously insulting the religion or the religious beliefs of any class, filing etc. of copy of Holy Quran, using of derogatory remarks etc. in respect of the Holy Prophet— Bail, grant of—Scope—Delay of more than two years in conclusion of trial—Record showed that three years and three months had passed since arrest of accused—Delay in delusion of trial had mainly been caused by the prosecution or the court itself—Even if the adjournments sought by the accused due to absence of his counsel or his non-availability were excluded, his total detention during the trial was more than two years—Despite lapse of three years and three months examination-in-chief of only a single witness had been recorded during trial—Speedy trial was the right of every accused person, therefore, unnecessary delay in trial of such cases would amount to denial of justice—Accused had made out a case for grant of bail due to inordinate delay in conclusion of his trial... Accused was granted bail accordingly. [pp. 149, 150, 151] A, B & E

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)— —S. 173—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A—Delay in submitting charge sheets, challans and interim-challans in court—Inefficiency by police—Preventive/detective, investigation and prosecution wings of police force—Supreme Court observed that supervising officers of said three wings took least interest to streamline the working of each wing, in an efficient and effective manner and to comply with the mandatory provisions of law; that charge sheets and submission of challans and interim-challans before the courts in criminal cases were delayed beyond the mandatory statutory period for no reason; that on the one hand the police was disregarding the law while on the other hand, with the passage of time and long delay in the submission of challans, trial in each case was delayed and some of the witnesses including star witness either vanished being killed by the opponents, meet natural death or abandoned their permanent abode making it a cumbersome job for the Trial Court to procure their attendance; that this was one of the major contributory factors in the backlog pendency of criminal cases and it also became a cause for frustration forcing the parties to take the law into their own hands by indulging in revengeful acts—Supreme Court directed that copy of present judgment should be sent to all concerned law officers, police officials and government officers, who should collectively and individually devise a proper strategy/policy to prevent the grave menace of delay in submitting charge sheets, challans and interim-challans in court and to immediately redress the same within the minimum possible time so that compliance was made with the mandatory provision of law and the relevant Articles of the Constitution in its true letter and spirit; that every officer who was found responsible for such delay should be made accountable; that copy of the actions taken along with minutes of each and every action taken, should be submitted periodically to the Registrar of the Supreme Court with detailed infÓrm;ation about the cases pending investigation before the investigating agency, the prosecution branch and to explain the delay in the submission of challans to the Trial Court—Petition was allowed accordingly, [pp. 150, 151] C & D

Mrs. Asma Jahangir, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Ch. Zubair Ahmed Farooq, Addl. P.G. Punjab and Muhammad Akram, S.I./I.O. for Respondent No.l/State.

Ghulam Mustafa Ch., Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents No.2.

Date of hearing: 1st February, 2017.

jobs for advocates from Charsada lawyer