2010 GBLR 353 (PLP)
Syed JABBAR and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 GBLR 353 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J., Syed Jaffar Shah and Muhammad Yaqoob, JJ |
| Parties | Syed JABBAR and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Expunction of observations |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 GBLR 353 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Expunction of observations as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 GBLR 353 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J., Syed Jaffar Shah and Muhammad Yaqoob, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 GBLR 353 (PLP) (Syed JABBAR and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Haq Nawaz for Petitioners.
- Haji Jamal Khan for Respondent.
- The learned counsel for petitioner contended that statement of all eye witnesses have been recorded and only formal witnesses are left for examination and that from tentative assessment of the evidence available on record no case of conviction is made out, therefore, further detention of petitioners in jail pending conclusion of the trial is not justified and that in any case the above observation of the Chief Court with reference to the order of this court may cause prejudice to the petitioners before the trial court and they may not be able to get the benefit of doubt arising in their favour on merits.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Counsel for the petitioner had contended that statements of all the eye-witnesses had been recorded and only formal witnesses were left for examination
Counsel had also pointed out that as a result of baseless transfer application moved by the complainant before the Chief Court, the proceedings in the trial before the Trial Court had been struck off and the conclusion of trial had been un-necessarily delayed
Held, Expeditious disposal of a criminal case involving capital punishment was right of accused and the prosecution or complainant, must not be allowed to use delaying tactics to prolong the trial at the cost of agony of detention of accused in jail
Chief Court in exercise of its power of superintendence and the supervision of subordinate courts, must take notice of such matters to avoid unnecessary delay in the disposal of criminal cases; and could decide the transfer application on priority basis to avoid any further delay in conclusion of trial
Trial Court on decision of the transfer application would proceed in the trial day to day and conclude the proceedings within a month.
Observations of Chief Court appearing to be out of the context were ordered to be expunged by the Supreme Appellate Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, C.J.
The Petitioners while facing trial for the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. before the Sessions Judge Gilgit, have moved this second application before this court for grant of bail on the ground that in pursuance of observations made by this court in the earlier application disposed of vide order dated 3-9-2009, the petitioners instead of moving trial Court filed a direct petition for grant of bail before the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan and the learned Chief Judge in chamber by dismissing the bail application has observed as under: "The Hon'ble Chief Judge of the Supreme Appellate Court had found that after adducing of evidence when no case would be made out against any accused he should be entitled to the concession of bail instead of facing a long trial" The learned counsel for petitioner contended that statement of all eye witnesses have been recorded and only formal witnesses are left for examination and that from tentative assessment of the evidence available on record no case of conviction is made out, therefore, further detention of petitioners in jail pending conclusion of the trial is not justified and that in any case the above observation of the Chief Court with reference to the order of this court may cause prejudice to the petitioners before the trial court and they may not be able to get the benefit of doubt arising in their favour on merits. The learned counsel also pointed out that as a result of baseless transfer application moved by the complainant before the Chief Court, the proceedings in the trial before the trial court have been struck off and the conclusion of trial has been un-necessarily delayed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his assistance we have found that the observations made by the Chief Court has no nexus with the order of this court passed on 30-6-2010 which is read as under: "The petitioner instead of agitating for bail before this Court may approach the trial court for appropriate relief at proper stage and if so advised moved for the bail to the concern court after the evidence of eye-witnesses is (sic)." The comments on the merits of the case with reference to evidence at this stage may prejudice the case of either party before the trial court but we have found that the observation of the Chief Court referred above appears to be out of the context therefore same is expunged. This may be pointed out that the expeditious disposal of a criminal case involving capital punishment is right of accused and the prosecution or complainant as the case may be must not be allowed to use delaying tactics to prolong the trial at the cost of agony of detention of accused in jail. The Chief Court in exercise of its power of superintendence and the supervision of subordinate courts in Gilgit-Baltistan must take notice of such matters to avoid un-necessary delay in the disposal of criminal cases and learned Chief Judge of Chief Court may decide the transfer application on priority to avoid any further delay in the conclusion of trial. The trial court on the decision of the transfer application shall proceed in the trial day to day and conclude the proceeding within a month. This petition with above observations/directions stands disposed of. H.B.T./13/GLT Order accordingly.