Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision Application No. 68 of 1981, decided on 24th October, 1984.
‑‑‑Ss. 435, 439 & 561‑A‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Protracted trial‑ Prosecution in no way responsible for protraction of trial‑‑Accused himself filing revision after revision and one quashment application after another, leading to protraction of trial for more than 12 years‑ Applicant/accused themselves, held, to be blamed for delay in decision of case‑‑Application dismissed in circumstances.
S. Nasiruddin for Applicant.
Raja Qureshifor Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 (absent).
Nemo for Respondent No.6.
Date of hearing: 24th October, 1984.
This is an application under sections 435, 439 read with section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of a criminal case filed by respondent No.1 against respondents Nos.2 to 7. The allegation against the said respondents was that they had forged a power‑of‑attorney in the name of Mehardin and Fajar and on the basis of that power‑of‑attorney sold the land of the above persons to various purchasers by registered sale‑deed, dated 30‑11‑1975, although this land had already been sold by Mehardin and Fajar earlier to complainant Muhammad Siddiq. The case was registered on the report of Muhammad Siddiq and is now pending trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar.
2. So far as quashment of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and other accused is concerned, a similar application being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.50/1979 was dismissed earlier on merits by Syed Ghaus Ali Shah, J. by a detailed order, dated 13‑10‑1980. It was held in the above order by the learned Judge that so far as merits of the case are concerned, there was no justification for quashmen of the proceedings.
3. When the above order in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.50/1979 was brought to the notice of Mr Syed Nasiruddin, he did not press the application on merits of the case, but urged that the trial has protracted for more than 12 years, without any witness having been examined. From the perusal of the lower Court's record it appears that the case could not proceed for several years because the R & P was sent for by the Sessions Court in connection with a revision application. At the earlier stage the case was pending before a 1st Class Magistrate. Later on it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar.
4. Further delay was caused because after admission of this revision application, the record of the trial Court was sent for by this Court and is lying here for the last more than four years.
5. It cannot, therefore, be said that the prosecution is in any way responsible for protraction of the trial. The applicant himself has been filing revision after revision and one quashment application after another, A which has led to the protraction of the trial. The applicant and the accused are themselves to be blamed for the delay in the decision of the case.
This application is without substance and is, therefore, dismissed.
A. A. Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer