1991 PLP 1980 (MLD)

Jalaluddin Baluch for A: G. for the State. Date of hearing: 13th February, 1991. It is desirable to state briefly certain facts giving rise to this litigation.

2. Applicants Imtiaz Hussain, Tasaddaque Hussain, and Mushaddaque Hussain where prosecuted for making a murderous assault upon complainant Sajjad Nawaz, an offence punishable under section 307/34, P.P.C. (Crime No. 150 of 1989), Gizri P.S. The case proceeded before VIth Assistant Sessions Judge (South) Karachi, where prosecution examined complainant Sajjad Nawaz (P.W. 1), Iftikhar Nawaz (P.W. 2), and Arif Khokhar (P.W. 3). Since all these witnesses including injured Sajjad Nawaz (P.W. 1), who had set the law in motion, did not support the case of the prosecution an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf the applicants seeking their acquittal, but without success. The applicants have challenged this order dated 14-6-1990 before this Court in Cr. Misc. Application No. 216 of 1990, which was dismissed on 26-8-1990 with the following direction:

"In the result, the application is rejected. But the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within a period of two months and, if it so requires, proceed from day to day. If the case is not concluded within two months for any reasonable ground, a report should be submitted to this Court."

3. No progress in the case could be made in spite of the above direction and consequently the applicants had to approach this Court again by filing Cr. Misc. Application No.392 of 1990 with the prayer that the proceedings pending against the applicants in S.C. No. 622 of 1989 (Crime No. 150 of 1989), Gizri P.S" under section 307/34, P.P.C. in the Court of VIth Assistant Sessions Judge (South) Karachi, may be quashed.

4. I have heard Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Jalaluddin Baluch, learned counsel for State. The latter has supported the prayer of quashment of proceedings made on behalf of applicants.

5. Admittedly all the main witnesses including the injured person have been examined in this case, but none out of them has supported the case of the prosecution. The remaining witnesses, who are yet to be examined are only formal and their evidence, even if brought on record, is not going to improve the case of the prosecution. This fact was even noticed by this Court in Cr. Misc. Application No. 216 of 1990 in the following:-- "The learned A.A.-G. also agrees that it was a case of no evidence and it would serve no useful purpose to keep the case pending in the trial Court."

6. The proceedings pending before the trial Court were, however, not quashed as the case was likely to be concluded without any inordinate delay. No witness was, however, examined by the trial Court in spite of clear direction given by this Court and the case is at the same stage where it was on 26-8-1990, when Cr. Misc. Application No. 216 of 1990 was dismissed by this Court.

7. When a Court is convinced, on what has been already deposed that a criminal charge cannot be proved, section 265-K, Cr.P.C. relieves it from proceeding ahead. All the material witnesses have been examined in this case and there is no trace of evidence on record connecting the applicants with this a crime. To keep such cases pending in an attempt to search for some truth which might be dug out, is wrong and a waste of valuable time of the Court.

8. Having regard to the above factual and legal position I am of the view that the continuation of proceedings pending against the applicants in the above case before the trial Court amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed and the proceedings pending against the applicants in S.C. No. 622 of 1989, under section 307/34, P.P.C. are hereby quashed. H.B.T./I-1164/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application allowed.