1996 P Cr (PLP)

The examination-in-chief of P.W.1 Ghulam Muhammad is completed. -Cross-examination is reserved on the request of Mr. Shoib Shibli, Advocate and with consent of P.P. and Mr. Hakim Ali Siddiqui. To come up on 6-7-1994 .for cross-examination of P.W.1. Witness directed to attend. Accused remanded to custody to be produced on the next date of hearing. 6-7-1994 Mr. Israr Ali, P.P. for the State. Mr. Hakim Ali Siddiqui, Advocate for H.B.L. Mr. Shoib Shibli, Advocate for accused called absent. Accused produced by jail authorities. "P.W.1 Ghulam Muhammad is present in the Court and is available for cross-examination. Accused has filed an application withdrawing Power/Vakalatnama of his counsel and states that he will cross-examine the P.W. by himself. He has also prayed for supply of certified copies. Office is directed to supply him all the copies as prayed by accused on payment of usual costs. In the interest of justice and with the consent of P.P. and Mr. Hakim Ali Siddiqui, Advocate the case is adjourned to 13-7-1994 On 30-6-1994 On 30-6-1994 an application was received in the office of this Court from accused Javed Akhtar Junejo. From the contents of application it appears that the accused has raised plea of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. On the last date of hearing I directed Mr. Shoaib Shibly, Advocate who at that time was representing accused that he should file application in proper form on behalf of his client/accused if he requires any relief from this Court, but no such application has been filed. It appears from the conduct of accused that he is in habit of sending different letters from Jail to this Court. It is premature stage to consider plea of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. at this stage. Such plea will be considered after some prosecution evidence is recorded. The accused has been verbally informed of this order. " 13-7-1994 Mr. Israr Ali, P.P. for the State. Mr. Hakim Ali Siddiqui, Advocate for H.B.L. Accused produced by Jail Authorities. P.W.1 namely Ghulam Muhammad is present. He has been examined to Cases Nos.6 of 1994 and 3 of 1994. For want of time the cross examination of P.W.2 is reserved till 1-8-1994. Accused remanded to jail custody to be produced on next date of hearing. 1-8-1994 Mr. Israr Ali, P.P. for the State. Mr. Hakim Ali Siddiqui, Advocate for H: B. L. Accused produced by Jail Authorities. Cross-examination of P. W.1 Ghulam Muhammad partly recorded His further cross-examination is reserved for the prosecution of the list of Bank officials who was working in the concerned Branch at the relevant time. The case is adjourned to 11-8-1994, for further cross-examination of P.W.1. Accused is remanded to custody to be produced on the next date of hearing. 15-9-1994 Mr. Israr Ali, P.P. for the State. Mr. Hakim Ali Siddiqui, Advocate for H.B.L. Saleema Nasiruddin, Advocate for accused. Accused Javed Akhtar Junejo, produced by Jail Authorities. "Process-server P.C. Shaukat Ali of F.I.A. Crime, Hyderabad has filed his report about service of notice on Panah Ali Shah and Arif Dal. Notice was served on Panah Ali Shah who has appeared in response to the same. About Arif Dal it has been reported that he was on leave till 13-9-1994. On 1,4-9-1994 process-server again went to the Bank for service of notice but he was informed that Arif Dal has not resumed his office till 14-9-1994. Repeat notice to Arif Dal through D.D Crime Circle, F.I.A., Hyderabad Sindh. P.Ws.2 and 3 namely Sardar Ahmed and Iqbal Haroon are present. Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin, Advocate is present. In the interest of justice hearing of this case is adjourned and these witnesses are bound down for next date. Panah Ali Shah, the then Manager of H.B.L. has requested time to engage some counsel to enable him to answer the queries raised by this Court. The case is adjourned to 28-8-1994. To come up on 28-9-1994. Late Diary: Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin, Advocate has filed- application seeking permission to withdraw her Vakalatnama. Accused Javed Junejo has also made identical prayer. Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin, Advocate is hereby allowed to withdraw her Vakalatnama. Such application is brought on record as Exh.5. To come up on 28-9-1994, for further proceedings as order earlier. " 28-9-1994 Mr. Israr Ali, P.P. for the State present. Mr. Mansoorul Haq Ansari, Advocate, holding brief for Mr. Hakim Ali Siddiqui, Advocate for Habib Bank Ltd. Accused Jawaid Akhtar Junejo produced by Jail Authorities. Two prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Iqbal Manager, Indus Gas Branch, H.B.L., Hyderabad and Sardar Khan, officer, Zonal Office, Hyderabad are present. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court vide order, dated 28-8-1994 Panah Ali Shah, the then Manager and Arif Dal the then Cashier of Habib Bank Ltd., Indus Gas Company Branch are present and have filed applications that the time be granted to them for engaging some Advocate. Application allowed and last chance is granted to them to engage any legal counsel/Advocate. " On 21-9-1994 and 22-9-1994 two different letters were received in this Court addressed by accused Jawaid Akhtar Junejo. Both these letters were confronted with the accused who admitted to have written them on 15-9-1994. Letter received on 21-9-1994. In this letter besides serious allegations attributed towards this Court, he has also written as follows:-- The above-quoted portion was again read over to accused in open Court who admitted to have written the same and in acknowledgement of the same again signed on the right edge of the said letter on page

2. In another letter which was received in this Court on 22-9-1994 besides several contemptuous remarks about this Court, he has- levelled the following allegations:-- Again the abovesaid contents of the letters were read over to accused in open Court who admitted to have written such remarks about the Court and in acknowledgment of the same has put his signature on the right side of the pages Nos.3 and 4 in open Court and in presence of both the learned counsel. Both these letters be kept on record in Case No.30 of 1993 and be placed alongwith the other cases which are fixed on 29-9-1994. It is a well-settled law that 'justice should not only be done but it seems to have been done. From the above-noted remarks of accused it appears that he is not satisfied from 'the way his trial is being' conducted. Therefore, it will not be fair and just to proceed with this case any further. In view of these circumstances, a reference be made to the Ministry of Law, Government of Pakistan Islamabad for constituting a separate Special Court for trial of this case. As far as the question of contempt of Court is concerned, I am leaving this matter open. These two letters may be placed before the other Presiding Officer, if constituted by the Federal Government. Both the prosecution witnesses who are present in this Court are discharged for the time being. To come up on 13-10-1994. Accused remanded to custody to be, produced on the next date. 10-11-1994 Mr. Israr Ali, P.P. for the State. Mr. Hakim Ali Siddiqui, Advocate for H.B.L. Accused Javed Akhtar Junejo produced-by the Jail Authorities. A notification bearing No.F.7(2), 94-A-III, dated 27th October, 1994, received from Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (Law and Justice Division), Islamabad regarding transfer of this case to the Special Court consisting of Mr. Syed Hassan Shah Bukhari, Special Judge (Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling), Karachi. Let the record and proceedings be sent to the concerned Court. The Superintendent Central Prison, Karachi be directed to produced accused Jawaid Akhtar Junejo on the next date of hearing i.e. 17-11-1994. The accused present in custody is accordingly informed. 6-4-1995 A.D. F.I.A. Mr. Israr Ali is present. Accused is present in custody. Counsel for the Bank is present. . P.W. Iqbal is present. Issue reference to Ministry of Law for transfer of these. Put off to 19-4-1995. 30-8-1995 A.D. F.I.A. Mr Mr.Israr Ali is-present. Accused is present in custody. P.W.2 Muhammad Iqbal is recalled and further cross-examined. Accused made an application for recalling P.W.1 Ghulam Muhammad. Notice to prosecutor. Accused is also pressing for bail application. Both applications are to be heard on 4-9-1995. Put off to 4-9-1995. 14-9-1995 A.D. F.I.A. Mr. Israr Ali is present. Accused is present in custody. Bails application and application under section 540, Cr.P.C, are heard. Call Investigating Officer. Issue letter to Superintendent Jail and Investigating Officer about the previous conduct of accused. Adjourned to 21-9-1995." From the above material it is clear that-the trial could not be concluded on tile ground of delaying tactics which were adopted by the applicant, accused himself on each date of hearing when the P.W. was present, parties were present, either the application was submitted by the applicant/accused himself or duly authorised person acting on his behalf in the Court with the result that the trial could not be concluded with no fault of the prosecution at all. Prima facie, it appears keeping in view the proviso of statutory delay the applicant/accused has taken advantage of it and tried his best so that the trial could not be concluded. On the other hand he agitated the ground of delay for getting himself released from the jail. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused are quite different and distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the cases cited by the learned counsel the delay whatever which occasioned in the cases was not on the part of the applicant/accused but on the part of the prosecution and applicants/accused were not desperate dangerous and hardened criminals in the above cases because no such material was produced by the prosecution in those cases. Whereas herein this case right from the submission of the challan against the applicant/accused who started moving applications for adjournments and also false and frivolous applications against the Presiding Judge for getting his case transferred with the result that the trial could not be concluded. In none of the cases referred hereinabove the applicants/accused were held responsible for delay whereas in this case as I have already pointed out whatever the delay has occasioned that is on the part of the applicant/accused or the person acting on his behalf. The provisions of proviso 3 of section 497, Cr.P.C. referred hereinabove clearly comes in the way of the applicant/accused and I am of the firm opinion that the applicant/accused is not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of statutory delay. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the application was dismissed on 1-4-1996 and these are the reasons for the same. N.H.Q./J-7/K Bail refused.