1994 P Cr (PLP)

S. 12

Contempt of Court

Possibility of the accused, a police employee, having lost a notice to appear in Court could not be ruled out and he, perhaps therefore, did not exactly know the date on which he was required to appear in Court as well as the location of the Court

Accused was acquitted in circumstances. Shahid Hussain Kadri for Appellant. Ch. Zafar Iqbal for the State. Date of hearing: 19th December, 1993. JUSTICE RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN (MEMBER).

Ghulam Murtaza F.C. No.1642 Police Station B-Division, Sheikhupura was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month under section 12 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1992, by the learned Judge Special Court for Speedy Trials No.II, Lahore, on 28-6-1993.

2. The allegation, in brief, is that the appellant was ordered to appear as a prosecution witness in a case fixed before the learned Court. On 24-4-1993, a notice was issued to the appellant for his appearance on 26-6-1993. The service of notice was duly effected upon the appellant on 24-5-1993. The process- server also obtained signatures of the appellant on the duplicate copy of the summons. Despite service, the appellant failed to attend the Court on the date fixed and as such disobeyed the order. The warrants for arrest of the appellant were, therefore, issued and the S.H.O. Police Station B-Division was directed to execute the warrants by arresting the appellant. The S.H.O., however, deputed Muhammad Nawaz A.S.I. to arrest the appellant in compliance with the order of the Court. The appellant was not, however, found available in the police station. Again, the S.H.O. was directed to execute the warrants on which it was reported by him that despite his best efforts he was unable to arrest the appellant for his production before the Court. It was reported that Muhammad Rafique A.S.I. who was a relative of the accused misbehaved with the S.H.O. while he was performing his official duties. When called upon to explain his conduct the appellant stated that he was a new recruit in the Police Department and that he had kept the summons received by him in the pocket of his shirt which was lost when clothes were given to the washerman and for that reason he did not know the date of hearing. He went on to say that for the first time on 26-6-1993, he came to know that non-bailable warrants of his arrest had been issued. He explained that later on he ran away from the police station because of fear of- being arrested. His precise plea was that on 27-6-1993, he did come to Lahore and tried to find out the place where the learned Judge was holding his Court but he could not locate it and voluntarily appeared before the Court on 28-6-1993. The appellant submitted that he did not intentionally avoid to appear. He, however, tendered his unconditional apology for what had happened in the case.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the record we are of the view that in the given facts and circumstances, the explanation offered by the appellant might be true and the possibility that he lost the notice to appear in Court cannot be ruled out. We, therefore, feel that perhaps he did not exactly know the date on which he was required to appear because of the misplacement of notice to attend the Court. This also may be the reason for his failure to locate the place where the learned Judge was holding his Court. In this view of the matter, we accept the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him of the charge. He is on bail and shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. N.H.O./117,/SAC Appeal accepted.