TRIAL IN ABSENTIA NO.2

TRIAL IN ABSENTIA NO <!--[if gte mso 10]> TRIAL IN ABSENTIA NO.2 By Ch Irshad Ahmad, Consultant to the President of Pakistan (formerly Federal Law Secretary) A NOTE I am glad to learn that my article "Trial in Absentia" (PLD 2002 Journal 133) is being read by legal community. The interest my article has provoked is apparent from the article 'Trial in Absentia -- Revisited' by Faisal Khalid Daudpota (PLD 2002 Journal 244). My letter to the PLD publishers which has appeared as foot print to my article PLD 2002 Journal 211 at page 216, would show that I hold a firm belief that for the development of law it is essential that legal decisions are fairly commented upon, and I have called upon the wary scholars to raise to their duty. With the appearance of the article 'Trial in Absentia -- Revisited' I am happy to know that my call is being taken seriously. The happiest day of my life will be when my article is considered by Courts. It do not desiderate that my view point must be accepted. Even if it is dissented from I would be still happy because by that I shall stand corrected. A person must feel happy when he is informed that he is right what he thinks about a thing like and it is like that or that he is not right what he assumes a thing like but is not like that. However, if, the proper role an academic discourse plays in the context of any rule or principle is to be identified it is necessary that its proper meanings are understood in their proper context. It appears that the author of 'Trial in Absentia -- Revisited' has assumed something to have been written in my article "Trial in Absentia" which actually I did not write. The theme of my article is that an accused of an offence can be tried in absentia if he voluntarily remains absent from the Court (procedural law). It is not the theme of my article, as the author of the 'Trial in Absentia -- Revisited' appears to have assumed, that it shall be an offence if an accused voluntarily remains absent from trial (substantive law). My article relates to procedural law relating to criminal trials and does not relate to substantive law of crime. And, by section 31A of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 substantive law of crime has been enacted.