1989 PLP 886 (MLD)

Masood Sadiq Mirza for the State. Shahid Hussain Kadri for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 29th January, 1989. The facts giving rise to this petition for quashment are as under:‑ A case under sections 148, 452, 307, 324 and 325/149, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioners and one Sain at Police Station Oita Sobha Singh on 26‑2‑1973. After the investigation, they were sent up to face their trial. On 25‑11‑1976 Magistrate Section 30, Narowal, framed charge against them under sections 148, 452/149 and 307/149, P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 16‑5‑1984 Mr. Abdul Majid, Magistrate Section 30, Sialkot, acquitted them. The complainant filed a revision petition in the Sessions Court against the order of acquittal, dated 16‑5‑1984, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, vide judgment dated 31‑10‑1985, and the case was remanded to the trial Magistrate for fresh decision. The petitioners and co‑accused Sain moved a quashment petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. in this Court which was allowed vide order dated 13‑12‑1987 and the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge was set aside. The case was sent back to him for fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing both the parties who were directed to appear before him on 20‑12‑1987. Vide judgment dated 14‑2‑1988 the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and again sent the case to the Magistrate for fresh decision after considering all the evidence on the record.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceedings contending that they are facing the proceedings for the last fifteen years and continuation of the same amounts to abuse the process of Court. It is submitted that the injuries found on the person of Ibrahim P.W have to be treated as simple because the Radiologist was never examined; the petitioners remained in jail as under‑trials for about six months they faced the agony of a prolonged trial for eight years, therefore, a new round of criminal litigation after fifteen years is wholly uncalled for. Learned counsel for the complainant and the State have opposed the prayer for quashment. They submit that much of the delay occurred due to the conduct of the petitioners, therefore, they are not entitled to take benefit of their own default.

3. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material available on the record. Hakam petitioner was arrested on 11‑6‑1973, Zafarullah petitioner and co‑accused Sain on 15‑6‑1973, Barkat petitioner on 19‑6‑1973 and Buta petitioner on 24‑6‑19?

3. Order sheet of the trial Court reveals that they were in custody till 24‑12‑1973 when the, case was adjourned to 1‑1‑1.974 and on this date they were on bail, meaning thereby that Buta petitioner remained in jail as under‑trial for six months and the others for more than six months. Injuries No.1 (frontal left part of head), No.5 (defused swelling right upper arm) and No.8 (superficial Lathi mark medial aspect of left hand) were declared grievous as per X‑Ray report, dated 25‑2‑1973. However, the Radiologist was not examined, therefore, all the injuries on the person of Ibrahim have to be treated as simple. The petitioners have suffered the agony of prolonged trial for eight years and detention as under‑trial for six months. It does E not appear to be worthwhile now in the year 1989 to allow the proceedings to continue for another indefinite period as such a course would not result in furtherance of the cause of justice. In the circumstances, the proceedings are quashed. SA./H‑99/L Proceedings quashed.