Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision Case Nos. 314 and 315 of 1967, decided oil 13th February 1968.

S. 344‑ Adjournment sine die of criminal proceedings‑Not legal-- Magistrate staying criminal proceedings indefinitely pending disposal of title suit amongst parties pertaining to subject muter of offence‑Indefinite postponement of criminal case, held, undesirable‑Stay order modified by High Court to remain in force for six months.

An order for indefinite adjournment is not in accordance with law. Indefinite postponement of a criminal case is undesirable particularly when it is uncertain how long after the civil suit will be disposed.

R. Islam for Petitioner.

Mozammel Huq for Respondent.

These two Rules are heard together and disposed of by this Judgment inasmuch as the petitioner is common and one of the opposite‑parties Md. Idris is also common to both the cases and common question of law is also involved.

2. The petitioner in two cases is the Secretary of the East Pakistan Timber Merchants Group while the opposite‑parties are alleged to have been fraudulently using the same trade mark and causing loss to the petitioner‑company. A criminal prosecu tion has been launched against the opposite parties in Revision Case No. 314 of 1967 under sections 483 and 420, P. P. C. In the other case the opposite‑parties are facing prosecution under sections 236 and 282 of the Companies Act read with section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

3. Suits between the parties over this dispute are pending trial in the civil Court. The learned Magistrate Mr. M. A. Halim passed the order challenged in case No. 314/67 staying further proceedings in the criminal case concerned. Another Magistrate Mr. S. A. Matin passed the order in the other case in these terms "File hajira. The two accused on bail arc also present. Same order as in the case C/R 265 of 1967".

4. This is of course a very unsatisfactory order. Be that as it may, what we are concerned with is whether the impugned orders staying further proceedings in the criminal cases are legal and justified.

5. It was held in the cases The Emperor v. Ebrahim and others (55 C W N 768 ), Emperor v. Dinalshah Rajanshah and others (35 Cr. L J 517) that section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code which deals with the power of the Court to postpone or adjourn criminal cases does not provide for an adjournment sine die. An order for indefinite adjournment is not in accordance with law. It was further held in the latter case where it is not known when a civil suit for declara tion instituted by the accused will be disposed of and it is likely that when judgment is given there may be an appeal and even a second appeal, and the civil Court's decision will not dispose of all questions, it is undesirable that a complaint against the accused should remain un-disposed of till the civil Court has pro nounced on the question of title.

6. Indefinite postponement of a criminal case is undesirable; particularly when it is uncertain how long after the civil suit will be disposed. The learned Advocate for the opposite parties gives an assurance that the suits will be disposed of within a few months' time.

7. In view of this fact the Rules are made absolute. The stay orders are modified to remain in force for six months only, from today. It is directed that the criminal cases should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible after the civil Court has, pronounced on the question at issue.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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