P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SHAFI, J.‑

On tile 8th of June 1952, a report was lodged in Rawalpindi Cantonment Police Station that while investigating Case No. 265, had transpire, that Ghulam Muhayuddin and Muhammad Bashir, with the assistance of one Abdur Rashid, had forged certain records of the retired Military officials, and liar withdrawn their pensions, from the Post Offices by putting up Jalal Fazal Ilahi, Habibur Rehman for Hussain Muhammad, Muhammad Sadiq for Ghulam Muhammad and Dust Muhammad for Tufail Muhammad and Aurangzeb, and Mistri Muhammad Khurshid for Muhammad Yasin. It was further alleged in the report that this had been done with the active connivance or help of Manzur Ilahi, Fazal Karim, Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Afzal, Jehandad, Fazal Din and Captain Adalat Zar, Jalal Din, Ghulam Muhayuddin and Dust Muhammad accused had already been arrested on the 2nd of June 1952, in connection with another case. Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Sadiq, and Muhammad Khurshid accused were arrested on the 21st of September 1952. Abdur Rashid was arrested on the 24th of September 1952. Habibur Rehman was taken into custody on the 9th of October 1952. Fazal Karim and Manzur Ilahi were arrested and released on bail some time before the 22nd of October 1952. Muhammad Jamil accused was arrested on the 8th of October 1952. Jehandad and Fazal Ilahi accused were arrested on the 5th of December 1952. The record does not show as to when was Captain Adalat Zar accused arrested, but it appears that he was also taken into custody and released on bail near about the above dates. The record does not show as to what happened between the above dates and the 9th of March 1953, when the case was taken up by the Court. and the presence of Muhammad Bashir, Abdur Rabid, Muhammad Jamil, Manzur Ilahi, Muhammad Afzal, Fazal Karim, Jehandad, and Fazal Din was noted. They were then on bail. Muhammad Khurshid was not present and it was observed in the order that he was absent, although he was present on the previous dates of which there is no record. A non‑bailable warrant was issued for his arrest. Muhammad Khurshid again was not present on the 20th March 1953, when notices were issued to his sureties. Ghulam Muhayuddin, Dust Muhammad, and Jalal Din were also not present on this date and it was ordered that they should be summoned at their home addresses. As regards Captain Adalat Zar, an inquiry was ordered from the Military Authorities if they wanted the case to be tried by a Court Martial. On the 24th of April 1953, it was reported that Muhammad Khurshid was in Jhelum jail having been convicted under the Arms Act. He was ordered to be summoned from there. On the 26th of May 1953, Muhammad Khurshid was absent and so was Jalal Din, who was also reported to be confined in the Central Prison, Lahore. On the 14th of July 1953, the presiding officer was on leave and again Muhammad Khurshid and Jalal Din were not present. On the 3rd of August 1953, Jalal Din had not been sent by the Centra. Jail, Lahore Habibur Rehaman and Muhammad Khurshid accused were absent, and they were ordered to be summoned by non‑bailable warrants. On the 7th of September 1953, all other accused were present except Jalal Din, who was not sent by the Central Jail, Lahore, authorities. From this date upto 2nd of February 1954, the case was adjourned, on four different dates, but the jail authorities could not be persuaded to send Jalal Din to the trial Court. Some other accused had also absented themselves and they were ordered to be summoned by non‑bailable warrants. On the 1st of March 1954, all the accused were noted down as being present, but the case was adjourned to the 30th of March 1954, and then to the 30th of April 1954, because of the expected appointment of the Special Tribunals for the trial of corruption cases. The accused were ordered to be present' in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate. On the 17th of June 1954, Jalal Din was again said to be in jail, and he was ordered to be sent for from there. The case has crawled slowly along at an exasperating snail's pace without any prosecution evidence having been recorded. On one or two occasions, the Publi, Prosecutor got the case adjourned, because he wanted to study whether the case could be tried by the Special judge, and then whether all the accused persons could be tried at one trial or there should be separate trials for each accused. This is certainly very amusing that two years after the accused had been arrested and the case had been challaned, the Public Prosecutor was still in doubt as to how and in which Court the case should proceed. During this period it is again very remarkable to note that the progress of the case was hampered, because one or the other of the accused could not be bad from the Central Jail, Lahore. This is the deplorable state in which the case at present stands. Malik Fazal Karim, Manzur Ilahi and Muhammad Jamil have now made three separate petitions under section 561‑A of the Criminal P. C., for quashing the proceedings. They have got desperate and say that they have been under suspension as well as in suspense for the last five years; and nothing has been done in the case at all. They contend that it is the abuse of the process of the Court and they are now entitled to ask that the sword of Damocles which is hanging over their heads is removed permanently, I most regrettably observe that the whole trial has been turned into a complete mockery. " Justice delayed is justice denied " is an old and surely not an empty maxim and there cannot be a better case than the one now before me to which it can more aptly apply. I think the main purpose for which a criminal trial is held is that the guilty persons should be brought to book soon after the commission of the offence. This is both in the interest of the prosecution as well as it that of the accused. Criminal P. C., has laid down are elaborate machinery for the speedy disposal of criminal cases and it cannot be said that it has done so without sound reasons. In my view, the purpose of the criminal trial is completely frustrated if long time is permitted to elapse between the commission of the offence and the trial. Some very serious consequences may well emerge out of it. The accused may be seriously hampered in his defence or the prosecution itself might irreparably suffer there from either to its own disadvantage or to the disadvantage of the accused. If, therefore, the trial takes so long a time as it has taken in this case then it is fatal to the case, particularly when it has made no progress whatsoever. In case Rash Behary Karury v. The Corporation of Calcutta (A I R 1926 Cal. 102), their Lordships of the Division Bench quashed the criminal proceedings which were started on the 2nd of December 1923, and had not concluded in August 1924. Their Lordships remarked in this judgment as under :‑ " The defence for which the trial is to take place is now more than an year old and the difficulty of an accused person to meet a charge in respect of an offence committed long ago is obvious. If there is an impression anywhere that the proceedings of this nature can be tolerated it is time that such impression should be removed." In an other case Crown v. Piru (P L D 1955 Sind 227) a Division Bench of the Sind Chief Court quashed the commitment proceedings because they had remained pending in one Court or the other from 10th of December 1947, and 8th April 1948, to 1st March 1954. This order was passed in spite of the fact that most of the prosecution witnesses had been examined on one day or the other and only three witnesses were left behind. Their Lordships of the Division Bench referred to and relied upon the Calcutta case mentioned above as well as Ali Sher v. Mir Muhammad (26 Cr. L J 958), Moti Ram Jasa Mal v. Emperor (A I R 1943 Sind 10), Agha Nazar Ali v. Emperor (A I R 1941 Sind 186) and Emperor v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others (A I R 1942 Cal. 219). Their Lordships also referred with approval the observations made by Hayward, J. C., in Jehangir v. Ganga Ram (10 Sind L R 148), that the granting of frequent and lengthy adjournments resulted in a travesty of the prompt procedure contemplated by the Criminal P. C., and that frequent adjournments amounted practically to a denial of justice. The last case cited at the Bar is Criminal Miscellaneous No. 352 of 1957 decided by the Chief Justice S. A. Rehman on the 15th of April 1957. His Lordship remarked that the case was put in Court on the 23rd of December 1953, but the department had not been able to get sanction for the prosecu tion of the accused until the 6th of October 1955, and that this was a good ground for quashing the proceedings. The perusal of the different orders which have been passed by the learned Magistrate in this case and keeping the case pending for five long years without doing anything substantial certainly go to show that there has been an excessive abuse of process of law and denial of justice, which can, under the circumstances, be condoned. I, consequently A though with great reluctance accept the three petitions, and order that the proceedings started on the first information report recorded on the 8th of June 1952, be quashed. A.H. Petition accepted.