1997SCMR436 (PLP)
ASHOK ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997SCMR436 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASHOK ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997SCMR436 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997SCMR436 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997SCMR436 (PLP) (ASHOK ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Khair, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1993.
- Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Additional Advocate‑General, Sindh for the State.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in spite of the above‑quoted positive direction by the learned Judge in Chambers, the trial has not been concluded and the petitioner is being denied his statutory right to be enlarged on bail under the 3rd proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Advocate‑General, Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, admits that in spite of the expiry of the period of three months fixed by the High Court for conclusion of the trial, the Investigating Officer has not been examined in the case. It is also quite clear from the record before us that the petitioner is not in any way responsible for the delay in conclusion of the trial. The learned Additional Advocate‑General, makes a request that one month's time may be allowed to the Trial Court to conclude the case as the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, could not be examined in the case by the Trial Court, since the files relating to the case were with him. Mr. Mangi positively undertakes that the trial of the petitioner will be concluded under all circumstances by the Trial Court within one month from today.
- In view of the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General today in Court, we convert this petition into appeal and dispose of the same as follows:‑‑
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of High Court of Sindh, dated 26‑8‑1993 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.622/93). ‑‑‑‑S. 497(1), third proviso‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Bail‑‑‑Despite the positive direction of High Court trial of accused was not concluded by the Trial Court within three months and the Investigating Officer was yet to be examined in the case‑‑‑Accused was not in any way responsible for the delay in conclusion of the trial‑‑‑On the undertaking given by State Counsel that trial of accused would definitely be concluded within one month the petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and Trial Court was allowed one month's time to conclude the trial, failing which on the expiry of one month's period accused would be deemed to have been granted bail and would be enlarged on bail by the Trial Court. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Additional Advocate‑General, Sindh for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Khair, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Additional Advocate‑General, Sindh for the State. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1993. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner has called in question, through the above petition, the order of a learned Judge in Chambers of High Court of Sindh dated 26‑8‑1993 whereby the bail was refused to the petitioner on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial as follows:‑‑ "The trial of the case is almost complete except that I.O. remains to be examined for which the learned Trial Court is taking all steps to procure his attendance. Bail application in these circumstances merits no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. The learned Trial Court shall procure the attendance of the I.O. and if need be, even issue coercive process against him and complete trial within a period of three months from the date of this order." The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in spite of the above‑quoted positive direction by the learned Judge in Chambers, the trial has not been concluded and the petitioner is being denied his statutory right to be enlarged on bail under the 3rd proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Advocate‑General, Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, admits that in spite of the expiry of the period of three months fixed by the High Court for conclusion of the trial, the Investigating Officer has not been examined in the case. It is also quite clear from the record before us that the petitioner is not in any way responsible for the delay in conclusion of the trial. The learned Additional Advocate‑General, makes a request that one month's time may be allowed to the Trial Court to conclude the case as the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, could not be examined in the case by the Trial Court, since the files relating to the case were with him. Mr. Mangi positively undertakes that the trial of the petitioner will be concluded under all circumstances by the Trial Court within one month from today. In view of the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General today in Court, we convert this petition into appeal and dispose of the same as follows:‑‑ "The Trial Court is allowed one month's time to conclude the trial of the petitioner. In case the trial is not concluded within one month from today, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been granted bail in the case on expiry of one month's period and will be enlarged on bail by the Trial Court on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The appeal stands disposed of, accordingly. N.H.Q./A‑1416/S Order accordingly