Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 777 of 1976, decided on 4th April 1977.

-----S. 561‑A‑Quashment of proceedings‑Murder trial pending for a pretty long time due to abscondence of co‑accused‑Some evidence, already brought on record of trial Court‑Quashment declined with direction to trial Court to complete case within three months' time. [Quashment of proceedings].

Muhammad Hayat Junejo for Appellant.

Aftab Ahmad Akhund for the State.

Date of hearing: 4th April 1977

There is a case under sections 302, 148 and 149 read with section 120, P. P. C. pending against the applicants and a number of other persons before the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for the murder of one Ali Bukhsh Junejo on 5‑3‑1973 in the Bazar of Sanghar Town. It has a chequered history, and it is not necessary to go into any further details.

2: The quashment is sought on the ground that it is a case of no evidence, as even Khattan, the approver, has repudiated the pardon granted to him: Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, learned counsel for the applicants, seeks support for his confession from the order of the District Magistrate, Sanghar, dated 8‑12‑1973, which mentions, inter alga, that "in order to prove conspiracy of other main accused, there is no direct evidence, except the confession of accused Khatten". My attention has, however, been drawn to an earlier order passed by me, and which has been reported in Muhammad Ibrahim v. Rahim Dad and 4 others (1977 P Cr. L J 126). This order was in connection with the application for the cancellation of bail to some of the accused. The said order gives the details of the various pieces of evidence against the petitioners. There was an application seeking special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and that was also dismissed. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is no evidence. The question whether it is a case of murder is, to be examined by the trial Court.

3. I am of the opinion that the application for quashment is devoid of merit. I will, therefore, dismiss the same.

4. However, the matter has remained pending for a pretty long time. I am informed that the delay in between has been because of the absconder of some of the co‑accused. The trial Court is, therefore, directed to dispose of the case within a period of three months, and, if necessary, even proceed from day to day. Adjournment should not be permitted, unless it is because of circumstances beyond control, and, if the matter is not concluded within three months, a report should be submitted to this Court. If any record is lying in this Court, or, in the office of the Advocate‑General, the same should be sent to the trial Court within the next three days.

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.