Reference to Ehtesab Bureau

2014 MLD 1788 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 11 & 21(6), provisoCriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-KPenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.467, 468 & 471Forgery of valuable security, will etc., forgery for purpose of harming reputation, using as genuine a forged documentReference to Ehtesab BureauApplication filed by petitioner for his acquittal under S.265-K Cr.P.C., was dismissed by Judge Ehtesab CourtValidityReference in Ehtesab Court was submitted after 4 years and 4 months from receipt of complaint against the petitioner

Version of Ehtesab Bureau was that delay in filing the reference was caused by the petitioner in the garb of departmental inquiry and other excuses

Delay caused by any act of petitioner/accused, would not be counted towards the period of one year, as provided by the proviso to S.21(6) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001

Whether the petitioner caused delay in completion of investigation against him or not was yet to be proved which required proof by both the parties

Charge against the petitioner had been framed and the prosecution witnesses had been summoned for recording of statements

Court could not ascertain the fact as to whether reference was filed within time or not without recording of the evidence

Paramount consideration of court to pass order under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., was to ensure that miscarriage of justice was prevented

Evidence must be appreciated as to whether any of accused had committed any offence or not

Order of acquittal of accused under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. in appeal or revision, had not the same sanctity as orders of acquittal on merits

Prosecution should be provided every possible opportunity to prove its case and establish guilt of accused after full-fledged trial

Findings recorded by the Judge Ehtesab Court were based on sound and cogent reasons

No indulgence being required into the findings of the Judge Ehtesab Court, revision petition stood dismissed.