Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3969/13 of 1973, decided on 18th October 1973.

‑‑---S. 497‑Bail‑Delay‑Committing Magistrate granting adjourn ments for non‑appearance of absconding co‑accused as well as for non‑production of co‑accused from Jail‑Proceedings also held up by remissness of Police to produce evidence in Court Responsibility for delay, held, squarely lies on prosecution ---Court directed to complete inquiry within four months.

R. A. Awan for Petitioner.

Naseem Ahmad Khan for the State.

The petitioner is one of the six persons who have been sent tip by Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh to face an inquiry for committing offences under sections 302/397/396/398 and 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The occurrence took place on 30th of April, 1972 and the challan was submitted in Court on 18th of September, 1972. Since then no proceedings have been taken and the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution are purposely impeding the progress of the case. The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of Session which was dismissed by Ch. Abdul Saeed Sabir. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. While dealing with the question of delay in the prosecution of the case he observed that some of the accused were absconding and that the prosecution was not to be blamed for the delay.

2. I have now gone through the order‑sheet. This case has changed hands a number of times and is now pending in the Court, of Mr. Bashir Ahmed Khan, Magistrate First Class, Lahore. I find that the responsibility for delay squarely lies on the shoulders of the prosecution It is correct that three accused were absconding in this case but two of them namely Bashir and Liaqat were murdered in encounters with the Police and the third one, namely Ramzan, was arrested and lodged in Bahawalpur Jail. I also find that the case is being mechanically adjourned for the reason that three accused were not appearing. Non‑appearance of an absconding co‑accused is no ground for adjourning the case from date to date for an indefinite period. The best course for the Court in these circumstances is to separate the case of the absconders and to proceed against them under section 512 of Cr. P. C. There is no warrant for delaying the prosecution in respect of the accused who had already surrendered. I also find that from 18‑9‑1972 Muhammad Akram alias Bhola did not appear till he was brought in Court on 4th of December, 1972. He was again not sent from the Jail on 3rd of January, 15th of February, 12th of May, 1973 and on some other dates subsequent to there. The order sheet also shows that the copies of statements of the witnesses recorded by the Police under section 161, Cr. P. C. were got ready even on 29th of May, 1973 and some subsequent dates. Except on one date I.e. 19th of April, 1973, no prosecution witness turned up It appears that this case is being mechanically dealt with by the learned Magistrate without caring to see that the petitioner is entitled under the law to the conclusion of the proceedings against him within a reasonable time.

3. The evidence against the petitioner is that he was one of the six persons who committed an armed dacoity and deprived the complainant of a sum of Rs. 70,000 in which transaction Muhammad Ramzan, Cashier of Carry Home Restaurant, was killed. The petitioner is not named in the F. I. R., but he was identified in an identification parade held after his arrest on 9th of May. 1972. According to the learned counsel for the State he is said to have caused a blunt weapon injury to Abdul Rehman, an eye‑witness in this case. While I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, I think that the proceeding in this use are being held up by the remissness of the Police to produce evidence in Court. The case has also been delayed for the non‑production of Muhammad Akram alias Bhola from Jail. I would, therefore, direct that the learned Magistrate shall give priority to this case and proceed to record evidence as expedi tiously as possible. He is directed to charge the Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police personally with the duty of effecting services of the witnesses in this case. I would like him to finish this Inquiry within a period of four months after which period he shall send a report to this Court.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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