Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 1980; heard on 30th June, 1982.

‑‑ S. 417‑Appeal against acquittal --‑ Challan submitted to trial Court nearly 2 years after its registration and further no evidence produced by prosecution till case closed by trial Court nearly about 3 years and 11 months after its receipt in Court‑Many opportuni ties given to prosecution to produce evidence but to no avail and even issuance of coercive processes without effect‑Every accused, held, having a right of speedy justice cannot be made to suffer for non‑production of witnesses in Court nor can case be kept pending for an indefinite period‑Impugned order of acquittal, held, called for no interference in circumstances.

Khurshid Alam Ramay for A.‑G. for the State.

Sardar Ataullah, Muhammad Iqbal Cheema, Imtiaz Ahsan and C. M. Sarwar for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 30th June, 1982.

Public Prosecutor, Punjab, filed this appeal under section 417, Cr. P. C. against the order of acquittal passed by Magistrate First Class, Sheikhupura, on 28th January, 1980.

2. The case was registered on the written statement of Nazeer Ahmad Khan, Assistant Food Controller, Sheikhupura, dated 5th April, 1974. He disclosed in the said application that on 3rd April. 1974, he learnt through S. M. Adil, Food Grain Supervisor that Sh. Mumtaz Ahmad Shamim, depot holder was drawing quota of sugar on the basis of forged challan forms and forged bank receipts. He further disclosed that on the receipt of the said information, he checked the relevant challan forms and the bank receipts and it transpired that Mumtaz Ahmad Shamim and other depot holders had been cheating the Government and drawing sugar quota on the basis of forged challan forms and forged receipts. Formal F. I. R. was drawn up the same day and investigation conducted. Three separate challans were submitted in Court. In the present case, challan was submitted against Sh. Mumtaz Ahmad Shamim, Naseem alias Lala and Noor Hussain Shah. An incomplete challan was prepared in August, 1974. Complete challan was prepared, on 21^st May, 1975 and received in Court on 1^st March, 1976. It took more than one year and ten months in submitting the challan. After the submission of challan, the case remained pending for more than three years and ten months but the prosecution failed to produce even a single witness in the case. On several occasions, the Court used coercive measures in order to secure the atten dance of the witnesses, but remained unsuccessful in securing the atten dance of the witnesses. Even the order for giving last opportunity to the prosecution to produce evidence, did not bear any result. I he Court was constrained to close the evidence on 24th January, 1980. Since the Prosecution failed to produce even a single witness out of twenty‑four witnesses cited in the calendar of witnesses, the trial Court acquitted the accused vide order dated 28th January, 1980. A revision petition had been filed by Special Public Prosecutor against the order of acquittal, but it was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 28th April, 1980, on the ground that the revision petition was not maintainable as the State had a right of filing an appeal. Besides, the Special Public Prosecu tor, who filed the revision petition, failed to produce any authority from the Provincial Government authorizing him to file the revision peti tion. After the dismissal of the revision petition, the present appeal was filed.

3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the trial Court did not make any genuine effort in securing the attendance of the witnesses ; that the prosecution witnesses were public servants and they could easily be located and had the summons been sent through the department, they would have been served, but this procedure was not adopted by the trial Court ; that on 23rd December, 1979, six witnesses were present in Court but their statement, were not recorded and thus the prosecution was not to be blamed for the non‑production of the witnesses and the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court was liable to be set aside.

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appear ing on behalf of State. I do not find any force in them. As state d earlier the case was registered on 5th April, 1974. The challan was submitted in Court, on 1^st March, 1976. Thereafter, the evidence was not produced till 24th January, 1980 when the trial Court was constrained to close the prosecution evidence. I have perused the order sheet. Many opportuni ties had been given to the prosecution to produce evidence but not even a single witness was produced in Court. The learned Magistrate bad issued warrants of arrest of the prosecution witnesses, but the coercive measures did not bear any result. In the present case, the Government has suffered a loss of Rs. 32,070. The prosecution showed 'least interest in producing the witnesses. There might be thousands of cases in the country where the Government suffers loss of crores of rupees due to the lack of interest shown by the prosecution. To avoid such losses due to the lack of interest shown by the Prosecution Branch, the Government should think of the desirability of separating the Prosecution Branch from the Police Depart ment. If the Prosecution Branch is separated, and some strength is placed at the disposal of the Prosecution Branch, then the Prosecution Branch would feel its responsibility and serve the witnesses and produce them in Court. Unless this suggestion is seriously considered and action taken on it, the Government would continue suffering such losses in future.

5. The accused cannot be made to suffer for the non‑production of witnesses in Court. The case cannot be kept pending in Court for an indefinite time. Every accused has a right of speedy justice and where justice is delayed, it amounts to denial of justice. In the present case, the learned Magistrate rightly closed the prosecution evidence and acquitted the accused. The impugned order does not call for any interference from this Court. The appeal filed by the State is without any merits and it is dismissed.

6. Copy of the order shall be sent to the provincial Government for such action, as it deems proper.

Appeal 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.