2014 PLP 2638 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, J.

This criminal revision is directed against the order and judgment dated 17-7-2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Lakki Marwat, whereby the learned trial Court ordered sine die adjournment of a case, F.I.R. No.189 dated 17-7-2012 under sections 302/324/34 P.P.C., Police Station Dadiwala.

2. Succinct facts of the case are that on 17-7-2012, complainant along with his deceased father Sadullah Jan and his mother Mst. Nazeera Bibi, were proceeding towards a land namely Kamar Tota, for the purpose of digging out Jhand trees. Deceased Sadullah Jan was ahead, while the complainant and his mother were following him. Suddenly at about 0700 hours, accused Sadullah and Umer Farooq appeared and started firing at them with the intention to commit their Qatl-e-Amd. As a result father of the complainant Sadullah Jan was hit, got injured and fell on the ground. The complainant and his mother started running towards their house, but the accused were still firing. However, they escaped unhurt. When after the occurrence the accused decamped from the spot they attended the deceased but he had succumbed to the injuries. Motive for the offence was stated to be illicit relation of brother of complainant Jan Alam with the sister of accused.

3. On conclusion of investigation, the trial commenced before Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Lakki Marwat. During the trial, both the eye-witnesses were summoned but the concerned DFC reported that complainant Qasim Jan along with his brother, has been charged in other criminal case vide F.I.R. No.237 dated 9-9-2012 Police Station Dadiwala and absconding. They have reportedly shifted their abode to some unknown place.

4. The accused/ petitioner submitted an application for his acquittal under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., on the ground that there is no prospect of appearance of eye-witnesses. The learned trial court released the accused/petitioner on bail and adjourned the case sine die till appearance of complainant party. The accused/ petitioner has challenged the sine die adjournment order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Lakki Marwat.

5. Learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner argued that, the complainant party has left his abode and there is no prospect of their appearance in the near future. He argued that there is no chance of conviction of accused/ petitioner. Justice, he further argued, demands that the accused be acquitted on acceptance of his application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.

6. Learned Asst: A.G for the State contended that the learned trial court has rightly adjourned the case sine die in accordance with law, as the complainant and eye-witnesses are not appearing before the Court, whose statements are necessary to be recorded for just decision of the case. He concluded that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the trial Court. 7. 1 have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant A.G for the State and gone through the record with their valuable assistance.

8. Perusal of the record reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Lakki Marwat through the impugned order has adjourned the case sine die for an indefinite period which is against the spirit and mechanism provided by section 344, Cr.P.C. The indefinite postponement of a criminal case is undesirable. For proper appreciation and correct understanding section 344, Cr.P.C. is reproduced below:-- "

344. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. (1) If, from the absence of a witness or any other reasonable cause, it becomes necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of or adjourn any inquiry or trial, the Court may, if it thinks fit, by order in writing, stating the reasons therefor from time to time, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody: Remand. Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time. (2) Every order made under this section by a Court other than a High Court shall be in writing signed by the Presiding Judge or Magistrate."

9. A bare reading of the above section reveals that the court may if it thinks fit by order in writing stating the reason therefor from time to time, postpone or adjourn proceedings for a definite reasonable time. The section 344, Cr.P.C. restricts the powers of Sessions Judge to adjourn the case sine die for an indefinite period. The Sessions Judge may adjourn the case for good reason, but up to a reasonable time. The section ibid never provides that for procuring evidence of a fugitive from law the case be kept pending for an indefinite period. If such practice is allowed, I am afraid no sessions case would reach to a conclusion. In frivolous and concocted cases, a witness would deliberately absent himself and the Court would have to do nothing except waiting. The policy of criminal law aims at bringing accused persons to justice as speedily as possible, so that if they are found guilty, they may be punished and if they are found innocent, they may be acquitted and discharged.

10. In wake of above it is held that the learned trial court adjourned the case sine die for an indefinite period, which is not the requirement of law, he was under legal obligation to adjourned the case sine die after stating the reasons, for time to time, so that he may dispose of or decide it at the relevant time when he think fit. The learned trial court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the above mentioned observations and strict comply with section 344, Cr.P.C. On the above observations, this revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. HBT/354/P Order accordingly.