P (PLP)

ABDUL RASHID, C. J.‑The petitioner, Inayat Ullah, was tried in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore for offences under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 19 (f) of the Arms Act. He was acquitted on both charges. On appeal the High Court of Judicature at Lahore convicted him under section 302 and sentenced him to trans portation for life.' The order of acquittal in respect of the offence under the Arms Act was, however, maintained. Inayat Ullah has now preferred a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Sawhney urged the follow ing points:‑

(1) The trial was wholly illegal owing to mis‑joinder of charges. (2) The confession of the deceased was recorded by a Third Class Magistrate under the provisions of section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This confession was inadmissible in evidence and should not have been taken into consideration in convicting the petitioner. (3) The judge who saw and heard the witnesses had dis believed them and had acquitted the petitioner. There was no sufficient reason for reversing the findings of the Sessions judge in respect of the credibility of evidence. We consider that this case involves several important questions and we, therefore, grant the petitioner special leave to appeal. The petitioner was sentenced to transportation for life by the High Court on the 13th June 1950. Mr. Sawhney stated that the petitioner had not so far been arrested, and that no warrant of arrest bad so far been issued for his arrest. In fact, the petitioner was present in this Court at the time when this petition was being argued. It is highly regrettable to find that the order passed by the High Court on the 13th June had not been carried into effect by the 22nd November. For over five months no steps had been taken by the authorities for his arrest. It is not possible for us to know the reasons for this flagrant omission although several alternatives suggest themselves to us. We would, however, refrain from stating them as they must of needs be in the nature of conjectures. This is the third case of its kind that has come to the notice of this Court. It is time that the Provincial Government instituted an inquiry as to why accused persons were not promptly taken into custody after they had been sentenced to imprisonment by the High Court, or when the appeals or petitions for revision, preferred by accused persons, released on bail, were dismissed by the High Court. The dignity and prestige of the High Court suffer greatly if the orders of the High Court are not enforced promptly. As the petitioner has not been arrested for a period of over five months, we direct that he shall not be taken into custody pending the decision of his appeal by this Court. A. H. Leave granted. Attorney for Petitioner :‑-‑Muhammad Siddiq.