P L D 1959 (W P (PLP)

Date of hearing :15th July 1959. These are 34 Separate, but identical petitions, submitted by one Wali Muhammad, Store Keeper (under Suspension) Electricity Department Peshawar Cantonment Sub‑Division, under section 561‑A Cr. P. C. for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him for prosecution on charges under sections 409, 420 and 468, P. P. C. in the Court of Mr. Abdur Razzaq Abbasi Special Judge Peshawar.

2. The progress of these cases discloses a lamentable state of affairs, which perhaps, is unprecedented in the history of criminal administration. Briefly, the petitioner was suspended on the 1st March 1949, while the F. I. R. was lodged on the 15th November 1949. After the investigation was completed, the cases were put up in the Court of Assistant Commissioner Charsadda (Magistrate Ist Class) on the 18th September 1954. Adjournment after adjournment was granted right up till 10th July 1955, on one ground or another, which prima facie were not quite cogent. Thereafter the cases were transferred to the Court of Mr. Aslam Abdullah, Special Judge, on the same day (14th July 1955). No progress was made in the commencement of the proceedings, until the Special Judge was transferred on the 16th November 1955. The cases then remained in cold storage, until they were brought out on the 16th February 1959 and put up in the Court of Mr. Abdur Razzaq Abbasi, Special Judge Peshawar. Except for one case No. 263/2 of 1951, which is ripe for judgment, the rest of the cases remain untouched and no proceedings have yet been commenced. The order No. 2 dated the 21st February 1959, of the learned Special Judge on the order sheet is quite sufficient to give some idea of when proceedings in the cases are likely to start and the trial completed. He remarks :‑ "File received from the Senior Special Judge Peshawar today. Proceedings to start when out of the 349 cases received today, those, proceedings wherein have already been taken, reach the stage of completion. There are 35 cases against the accused and it would be convenient from the point of view of all concerned to start them in one lot." No great efforts are required to imagine, that the petitioner has to wait possibly for years before he gets his turn, and the cases against him are tried and disposed of.

3. It will be seen at a glance from the brief history of the cases, outlined above, that no progress, whatsoever, was made in the commencement of proceedings from November 1955, up‑till February 1959, and it is not yet known, as to when the trial would commence, what to say of their conclusion. The petitioner, who is under suspension for more than ten years, is getting a meagre monthly subsistence allowance of Rs. 13‑14‑

0. It is obvious, that he cannot seek employment anywhere else, nor can he probably start business. The situation, in which he has been placed, can better be imagined than described. If the inordinate and inexplicable delay in the disposal of the petitioner's cases is not an abuse of the process of law, one fails to understand what else it can be.

4. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General desperately tried to meet the petitioner's contention with the argument that the delay in the commencement of the proceedings was mainly due to two factors, firstly, no Special Judge was appointed between 1955 and 1959, and secondly, the hands of the present Special Judge, Mr. Abdur Razzaq Abbasi, are already full with a large number of other cases, of which he has taken cognisance, and that he could not possibly commence proceedings in the cases against the petitioner, unless the others were first decided. The argument is nothing, but an admission of defeat by implication. If the cases lingered on in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner for ten months without any step being taken to commence the pro?ceedings, or Mr. Adam Abdullah, Special Judge, kept the cases on his file for four months without doing anything or thereafter the Government did not appoint any Special Judge for about four years, the petitioner was not at fault and the blame must be laid at the door of the other side.

5. After all, there must be an end to the anguish of a person, who has been suspended from service on certain charges which have yet to be proved, but he is not afforded his statutory right to clear his conduct; because he can clear his conduct only after the prosecution has produced its evidence and he has entered upon his defence.

6. The delay in the trial of cases against the petitioner is so glaring and unjustified, that it cannot be easily condoned. An accused person is entitled to speedy justice, and if it is denied to him, this Court will come to his rescue. In the present case the petitioner has waited in vain for ten long years to get justice, but he has been told to wait for some time more. This amounts to torture, though there may not be any such intention.

7. There are several authorities in which inordinate delay in the dispensation of justice, has been condemned. Some of the recent ones, are Malik Fazal Karim v. The State (P L D 1957 Lah. 837) Muhammad Tufail v. The State (Cr. Misc. No. 325 of 1957) decided by Rehman, C. J. on the 15th April 1957, and Muhammad Hussain v. The State (P L D 1959 Lah. 322), in which the delay was of less than five years duration. I fully agree with the pro?position of the law so ably and clearly laid down by their Lordships:

8. In order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law, it is necessary to afford protection to the petitioner, who has been denied justice for such a long time. Consequently, proceedings against him in all the cases, except No. 263/2 of 1951, are quashed, and he is discharged. It may however, be pointed out, that the order of discharge will not affect his liability if any incurred departmentally. K. B. A./A. H.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.