1992 P Cr (PLP)
ZAHEER MIRZA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAHEER MIRZA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (ZAHEER MIRZA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 5, 9 & 23
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.439
Application for condonation of the absence of accused had been dismissed by Trial Court by a non-speaking and telegraphic order of one sentence issuing non-bailable warrants against the accused
Such order neither disclosed any reason for the dismissal of' the said application nor anything was available on record to show as to why such a serious view had been taken by the Trial Court
Order was set aside in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1992. The facts giving rise to this revision application filed under section 439, Cr.P.C., are simple and may be briefly summed up.
2. Applicant Zaheer Mirza is facing trial before VIIth Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karachi/Tribunal under F.E.R. Act, 1947, in a case under sections 5, 9 and 23 of the F.E.R. Act, 1947. The applicant who has been attending the Court regularly since 1989 was stuck up in Islamabad and therefore, he could not attend the Court on 8-2-1992. The application was moved on his behalf by his son who is co-accused for condoning the absence, which came to be dismissed with the following order:-- "Rejected. Issue N.B.W. and notice to surety." This order-dated 8-2-1992 is the subject-matter of the present revision application.
3. I have heard Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. S.ZA. Qureshi, learned counsel for State. The latter has not supported the impugned order.
4. The impugned order which I have reproduced above is not a speaking order. It does not tell the applicant why and how his prayer for condonation of absence was rejected. The order is obviously judicial one which rules out any caprice or whim. Recording reasons is the best evidence to show that the Court has applied its mind while passing an order of this nature wherein liberty of an individual is involved. It is unnecessary to state how important and how valuable the liberty of a person is. As a presumably innocent person the accused is entitled to a fair opportunity to defend himself, which includes an indulgence of this nature. A balance is to be kept between undue leniency and undue severity. If the prosecution can be permitted to drag the case for years together, the accused is also entitled to seek an exemption on account of urgency or emergency. At, any rate there is nothing on record to show as to why such a serious view was taken by the trial Court and in the absence of any reason, I am unable to persuade myself to sustain this telegraphic order of one sentence.
5. In the result the revision application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. N.H.Q./186/Z-K Revision allowed.