1996 PLP 1648 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.302/324/394‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.438‑‑‑Criminal Reference‑‑‑Extension of time sought for disposal of trial‑‑‑Trial Court failed to conclude the trial within the period specified by High Court and sought extension of time after the expiry of said period‑‑‑Such practice was' deprecated by High Court observing initially, that the reference for extension of the specified period should have been made by Trial Court before the date of its expiry and secondly that the order passed by High Court should not have been taken by Trial Court in routine keeping in view the discipline followed in the judicial. hierarchy with the direction not to repeat such lethargic and recalcitrant attitude in future‑‑‑Directions given and guidelines provided to give due weight to High Court's Orders and to Sessions trials in the matter of their disposal. This Criminal Reference has been sent by Ch. Akbar‑Alf‑Cheema, Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur through his Office Letter No. 145, dated 9‑5‑1996^which is in continuation of Criminal Reference No.2 of 1996(BWP). The trial Court was directed vide order dated 15‑1‑1996 to dispose of the trial arising out of F.I.R. No.261 of 1994 registered at Police Station Khairpur Tamiwali, District Bahawalpur under section 302/324/394, P.P.C. within a period of three months from 15‑1‑1996. The aforesaid order has not been complied with till 15‑4‑1996 and this Reference has been sent on 9‑5‑1996 seeking extension of time. The Reference is being answered as under: ‑‑ "I have to express my surprise as to why the Reference was, not sent before the expiry date (i.e. 15‑4‑1996). The order passed by this Court should not be taken in routine keeping in view the discipline which is to be followed in the judicial hierarchy and it is hoped that in future this type of lethargic and recalcitrant attitude shall not be repeated. "

2. The reason mentioned by the learned Presiding Officer is that the defence counsel are not available. In this regard I am tempted to express that the direction of this Court has to be given the weight and followed and any type of accommodation to ‑the learned defence counsel can be withdrawn by engaging some defence counsel at State expense. It shall not be out of place to express that the Sessions trials should be given the seriousness which they deserve. The trial Courts should fix these cases on specified dates and should not crowd their cause‑lists for those days. It would be proper to advise the learned trial Court to go through Chapter 24, Part B, Volume III of the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders for future guidance. The Sessions trial should not be treated as a theft case because the primary duty of the Court is to dispose of the Sessions cases.

3. Ch. Akbar Ali Cheema, Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur is directed to dispose of the relevant Sessions case before him till 22‑7‑1996 under intimation to the Additional Registrar of this Bench failing which the law shall take its course.

4. A copy of this order shall be sent to the said learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur within two days for compliance. N.H.Q./S‑29/L Reference answered.