Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 102‑Q/BWP of 1985, decided on 5th March, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Accused persons suffering agony of protracted trial for about 7J years for alleged commission of offences punishable under S.323/324/149, P.P.C.‑‑Accused serving out sentence as ordered by trial Court and case could not be decided for more than two years since remand by appellate Court‑‑Proceedings against accused, held, would tantamount to abuse of process of Court, in circumstances‑‑Proceedings quashed.

Ch. Ashraf Akhtar for the State.

M.A. Hameed for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 5th March, 1985.

The facts giving rise to this suo motu revision are that Naseera alias Nazira and six others were tried by Magistrate Section 30 (Judicial), Bahawalpur under section 307/326/148/149, P.P.C. on the allegations that they launched murderous assault upon Nazir Ahmed complainant and Rahim Bukhsh P.W. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate vide his judgment, dated 8‑11‑1980, convicted the accused under section 324/323/149, P.P.C. Nasira and Noori were convicted under section 324/323/149, P.P.C. Nasira was sentenced to six months' R.I. under section 324/149, P.P.C. and to three months R.I. under section 323/149, P.P.C. He was also awarded a fine of Rs.200 on each count in default thereof two months' R.I. Noori was sentenced to simple imprisonment till rising of the Court. The other accused namely, Abdul Majid, Rashid, Abdul Ghafoor, Pir Bukhsh, and Allah Bukhsh were sentenced to simple imprisonment till rising of the Court under section 323/149, P.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the accused persons filed appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur which was entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, who vide his judgment, dated 21‑6‑1982 accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and remanded the case back for retrial on the ground that the evidence was not recorded by the learned Magistrate or on his dictation or supervision or control.

2. During the inspection of the trial Court, it came to my notice that although the accused persons had served out the sentence yet the case was remanded back to the trial Court for retrial so I issued suo motu notice to the state for the quashment of the proceedings against the accused. It may be noted that Allah Bukhsh accused is since dead.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the State and for the accused I find that the occurrence took place on 16‑8‑1977 that the trial having concluded on 8‑11‑1980, the accused persons self‑red agony of protracted trial for more than three years; the appeal remained pending for about 1 year; that the case was remanded for retrial on 21‑6‑1982 and the case could not be decided for more than two years since remand. Resultantly the accused persons have suffered agony of trial for about 7 years for the alleged commission of offence punishable under sections 324 and 323/149, P.P.C. They were arrested by the police they remained for several days in the jail when they war allowed bail. Nasira accused was convicted and sentenced to six months R.I. He was taken into custody and sent to jail and was allowed bail after some days. The other accused had served out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court.

For what has been found above, I am of the view that the proceedings against the accused persons tantamount to an abuse of the process of Court and as such there is no option but to quash the same. Order accordingly.

S.G.D. Proceedings quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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