2004 PLP 1080 (MLD)
RASHIDA PARVEEN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1080 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Abdul Rashid, J |
| Parties | RASHIDA PARVEEN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1080 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1080 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Abdul Rashid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1080 (MLD) (RASHIDA PARVEEN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dildar Hussain Alvi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.365/148/149‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of.1898), S.417‑‑ Appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Accused persons faced the trial in case for almost six years and on several occasions the summonses and even warrants were issued by the Trial Court for appearance of prosecution witnesses, ,but they did not appear‑‑‑Trial Court, after lapse of six years refused to grant further adjournment for prosecution evidence and recorded acquittal of the accused persons on the ground that no prosecution evidence was available on file against the accused‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Prosecution could not be given licence to prolong the agony of accused by avoiding to produce its evidence for an indefinite period‑‑ Prosecution was duty bound to produce evidence as early as possible‑‑ Inordinate delay which occurred in the case had justified Trial Court for refusing to grant further adjournment for production of prosecution evidence‑‑‑No incriminating evidence being available on file against accused persons, their acquittal had rightly been recorded.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks condonation of delay in filing the main appeal. The delay is condoned and the office is directed to allot the number of the main appeal which is being taken up today. Main Appeal
2. This is an appeal against the order, dated 4‑9‑2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Faisalabad, whereby, the respondents Nos.2 to 5 were acquitted' in case F.I.R. No.517 of 1997, dated 31‑5‑1997, under sections 365/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad.
3. The respondents Nos.2 to 5 faced the trial in the said case for almost 6 years and on several occasions, the summonses and even warrants were issued by the trial Court for appearance of the P.Ws., but the prosecution witnesses did not appear. Consequently, on 4‑9‑2003 after a lapse of 6 years, learned trial Court refused to grant further adjournment for prosecution evidence and recorded acquittal of the respondents Nos.2 to 5 on the ground that no prosecution evidence was available on file against the said respondents. The prosecution cannot be given licence to prolong the agony of the accused by avoiding to produce its evidence for an indefinite period. It is duty of the pr6secution to produce the evidence as early as possible and the inordinate delay which occurred in this case justified the learned trial Court for refusing to grant further adjournment for production of prosecution evidence. As no incriminating evidence was available ort file against the respondents Nos.2 to 5, their acquittal had rightly been recorded. This appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./R‑15/L Appeal dismissed.