P L D 2001 Supreme Court 1049 (PLP)

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.‑‑‑Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court as well as Mr. M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on- Record for the petitioner are absent.

2. We have emphasised time and again that backlog and delays in quick dispensation of justice is a serious threat to the existing judicial system of Pakistan. The Judges cannot perform their duty without support and cooperation of the Bar. In criminal cases the responsibility of a lawyer stands on a higher pedestal than in civil matters. Concerted efforts of the Bench and the Bar are required for the dispensation of justice with efficiency and speed through a fair trial. A time has come when we have to take stern measures in order to preserve the system of administration of justice to discourage protracted trials, so as to improve access to justice and enable the accused to have a fair trial, so that those found guilty are suitably punished and innocent people are set at liberty. We should follow a middle course between the two well‑known maxims that: "Justice delayed is justice denied" and "Justice rushed is justice crushed". Simultaneously, it is the duty of the Court and all concerned to protect the rights of the victims, otherwise their honour, property and life would be in serious jeopardy and in constant fear of victimization. This being so it would not advance the cause of justice to grant adjournments frequently in criminal cases, in particular due to absence of the learned counsel. Under the general instructions issued by this Court the cases fixed for hearing before the, Court as published in the Final Cause List, are to be heard and disposed of accordingly and no adjournment on any ground is contemplated. This note prominently appears on the Supreme Court Final Cause Lists. It is unfortunate that neither Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme. Court nor Mr. M.A. Zaidi, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner are present in Court to argue the case arising out of the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby the learned trial Judge, Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities acquitted the private respondents of the charge on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court through the impugned judgment also upheld the judgment of acquittal in this double murder case.

3. Ordinarily, we would have disposed of this petition for non -prosecution but that would have the effect of seriously jeopardizing the victim's rights or the rights of the victim's heirs for no fault of theirs, inasmuch as, in the present case the heirs of the deceased have engaged a learned counsel of this Court as well as an Advocate‑on‑Record for pursuing the case but none have appeared to discharge their duty to their client as well as the Court. Such a state of affairs is indeed deplorable. Assuming that there was a genuine case for the non‑appearance of the learned counsel, the minimum courtesy required submission of an application for adjournment with reasons in that regard during the last week. Unfortunately, the learned counsel and the Advocate‑on‑Record had not taken pains in informing the Court.

4. Mr. Tariq Mehmood claiming to be the real brother of petitioner Shoaib Mehmood, present in Court, seeks adjournment on behalf of the petitioner and states that respondent Iftikhar‑ul‑Haq is alive and the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment, dated 19‑12‑2000 wrongly observed that Iftikhar‑ul‑Haq also died alongwith his co‑accused Gulzar Abbasi during the pendency of appeal before the High Court. Under the Supreme Court Rules, he has no locus standi to appear before this Court without proper authorization. Be that as it may, we have ourselves gone through the available material on record. We find that the judgment of the trial Court has not been appended to the present petition.

5. In order to ascertain true facts, let notice be issued to the Advocate General, Punjab as well as the private respondents.

6. Notice be also issued to Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court as well as to Mr. M.A. Zaidi, learned Advocate on‑Record for the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not taken against them for their non‑appearance in Court?

7. To come up for hearing on 19th September, 2001. M.B.A./S‑135/S Order accordingly. P L D 2001 Supreme Court 1053 Present: Irshad Hasan Khan, C J In re: SUO MOTU DIRECTIVES FOR REGULATING THE TRIALS AND APPEALS UNDER THE ANTI‑TERRORISM LAW PURSUANT TO THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN SH. LIAQUAT HUSSAIN'S CASE [PLD 1999 SC 5041 Suo motu case, decided on 13th September, 2001. ‑‑‑‑Arts. 187 & 184‑‑‑Anti‑Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Preamble ‑‑‑Suo motu directives for regulating the trials and appeals under the Anti‑Terrorism law pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Sh. Liaquat Hussain's case PLD 1990 SC 504‑‑‑Supreme Court, in view of various aspects of trial proceedings and the problems/difficulties faced in expeditious disposal of such cases the detention/arrest of the accused, conduct of investigation, submission, of challan, appointment of defence counsel and the hardships faced by the Trial Courts in timely disposal of anti‑terrorism cases and sectarian defences, issued the directives to the effect that the Police Department will arrange to depute qualified and experienced investigators to conduct investigation in a fair and transparent manner; that with a view to avoiding unnecessary delays, the investigation should not be transferred from one Investigating Officer to another in routine but a proper mechanism shall be devised for the purpose in order to check the tendency of causing delays in trial throw h frequent changes of investigations on frivolous grounds and false pretext ; that the Police Department will explore the possibility of engaging re 'red experienced PDSPs, PLs and PSIs for carrying out investigations that arrangements shall be made to have the Investigating Officers fully trained in the latest techniques of detection/investigation in terrorism/sectarian cases; that the Investigating Officer and area Magistrate shall ensure compliance with the procedural requirements laid down by the superior Courts including timely completion of identification parade and recording of the statement of witnesses; that to ensure the quality /standard of evidence, the provincial Governments shall consider constituting a committee of special investigators comprising qualified, experienced and dedicated officers to car .out investigation all over the province under the direct supervision of a senior Police Officer; that the relevant provisions of law and the judgments of the superior Courts shall be followed while collecting corroborative evidence in respect of recovery of weapons/other items; that the Police Department will ensure that investigations are carried out in a transparent manner and the Investigating Officer is made accountable in case of any deliberat delay or negligence or fabricating evidence; that it must be ensured that challans are submitted within the specified period; that arrangements shall be made to ensure the timely production of the witnesses in the Court so as to avoid adjournments and ensure expeditious disposal of cases; that the present system of appointment of defence counsel by the Court on meagre fee is unsatisfactory and a cause of delays/miscarriage of justice, therefore, well‑known and renowned defence lawyers should be appointed and for this purpose appropriate funds be provided to the High Court; that the law should be suitably amended so that in cases where the defence counsel appointed by the Court is not acceptable to the accused, the trial may proceed without the assistance of such counsel and the accused may; cross examine the witness and be responsible for the consequences; that Anti terrorism Courts/Judges shall handle such cases with care and caution so as to avoid undue delays and ensure compliance with procedural requirements in accordance with law and that the services of qualified staff, duly appointed on merit after advertisement and following transparent recruitment procedure, must be made available to the Anti‑terrorism Courts an for this purpose, necessary funds be made available to the High Courts‑‑‑Governors of the Provinces, the Chief Justices of the Provincial High Courts, Secretary, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Secretary, Interior Division, Government of Pakistan, Chief Secretaries of the Provinces, Provincial Law Secretaries, Secretaries, Home Departments and Inspectors‑General of Police were directed to take such measures as were necessary to give effect to the Supreme Court's decision in Sh. Liaquat Hussain's case PLD 19 9 SC

504. With a view to monitoring the implementation of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Liaquat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 504 for regulating the trials and appeals under the anti‑terrorism law, I had nominated .a Senior Judge of the Supreme Court in the interest of prompt disposition of terrorist/sectarian related fences so as to maintain law and order and to create an atmosphere f peace and tranquillity in the society.

2. The Senior Judge convened a meeting on 28th August, 2001 at Lahore, attended by the Administrative Judge, Lahore High Court for monitoring the progress of cases involving terrorism and sectarianism, Home Secretary, Punjab, Law Secretary, Punjab, Registrar, Lahore High Court, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Headquarters, ore, Chief Prosecutor, Anti‑Terrorism Courts, Punjab, and Judges of the Anti‑terrorism Courts in Province of the Punjab.

3. In the aforesaid meeting, all the relevant issues were examined in depth including various aspects of trial proceedings and the A problems/difficulties faced in expeditious disposal of such cases, the detection/arrest of the accused, conduct of investigation, submission of challan, appointment of defence counsel and the hardships faced by the trial Courts in timely disposal of anti‑terrorism cases and sectarian related offences. In the light of the deliberations held in the aforesaid meeting, I issue the following directives: (i) The Police Department will arrange to depute qualified and experienced investigators to conduct investigation in a fair and transparent manner. (ii) With a view to avoiding unnecessary delays, the investigation should not be transferred from one investigating officer to another in routine but a proper mechanism shall be devised for the purpose in order to check the tendency of causing delays in trial through frequent change of investigations on frivolous grounds and false pretexts. (iii) The Police Department will explore the possibility of engaging retired experienced PDSPs, PIs and PSIs for carrying out investigations. (iv) Arrangements shall be made to have the investigating officers fully trained in the latest techniques of detection/investigation in terrorism/sectarian cases. (v) The Investigating Officer and area Magistrate shall ensure compliance with the procedural requirements laid down by the superior Courts including timely completion of identification parade and recording of the statement of witnesses. (vi) To ensure the quality/standard of evidence, the Provincial Governments shall consider constituting a committee of special investigators comprising qualified, experienced and dedicated officers to carry out investigation all over the province under the direct supervision of a senior Police officer. (vii) The relevant provisions of law and the judgments of the superior Courts shall be followed while collecting corroborative evidence in respect of recovery of weapon/other items. (viii) The Police Department will ensure that investigations are carried out in a transparent manner and the investigating officer is made accountable in case of any deliberate delay or negligence or, fabricating evidence. (ix) It must be ensured that challans are submitted within the specified period. (x) Arrangements shall be made to ensure the timely production of the witnesses in the Court so as to avoid adjournments and ensure expeditious disposal of cases. (xi) The present system of appointment of defence counsel by the Court on meagre fee is unsatisfactory and a cause of delays/miscarriage of justice, therefore, well‑known and renowned defence lawyers should be appointed. For this purpose appropriate funds be provided to the High Court. (xii) The law should be suitably amended so that in cases where the defence counsel appointed by the Court is not acceptable to the accused, the trial may proceed without the assistance of such counsel and the accused may cross‑examine the witness and be responsible for the consequences. The anti‑terrorism Courts Judges shall handle such cases with care and caution so as to avoid undue delays and, ensure compliance with procedural requirements in accordance with law. (xiii) The services of qualified staff, duly appointed on merit after advertisement and following transparent recruitment procedure, must be made available to the anti‑terrorism Courts and for this purpose, necessary funds be made available to the High Courts. Let a copy of the above directives be sent to the Governors of the Provinces, the Chief Justices of the Provincial High Courts, Secretary, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Secretary, Interior Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, Chief Secretaries of the Provinces, Provincial Law Secretaries, Secretaries, Home Departments and Inspectors-General of Police for taking such measures as are necessary to give effect to the Supreme Court's d6cision in Sh. Liaquat Hussain's case (PLD 1999 SC 504). M.B.A./S‑136/S Order accordingly: