RASHIDA PARVEEN vs STATE and 4 others
This criminal appeal challenges the order dated 4.9.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Faisalabad, whereby respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted of the charge in case FIR No. 517/97 under Sections 365/148/149 PPC. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in refusing further adjournments and recording an acquittal after the prosecution failed to produce any evidence over a period of six years. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution cannot be granted an indefinite license to prolong the agony of the accused by failing to produce evidence, and the inordinate delay fully justified the trial court's refusal to grant further adjournments. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must produce evidence expeditiously, and failure to do so after a prolonged period warrants the refusal of further adjournments and a consequent acquittal based on the lack of incriminating evidence.
- Whether the prosecution can be granted indefinite adjournments to produce evidence?
- Is the trial court justified in recording an acquittal when no prosecution evidence is available after an inordinate delay?
- Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to appear over several years warrant the refusal of further adjournments?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks condonation of delay in filing the main appeal. The delay is condoned and the office is directed to allot the number of the main appeal which is being taken up today.
MAIN APPEAL.
2. This is an appeal against the order dated 4.9.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Faisalabad, whereby, the Respondents Nos, 2 to 5 were acquitted in case FIR No, 517/97, dated 31.5.1997, under Sections 365/148/149 PPC registered at police station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad.
3. The Respondents Nos, 2 to 5 faced the trial in the said case for almost 6 years and on several occasions, the summons and even warrants were issued by the trial Court for appearance of the P.Ws, but the prosecution witnesses did not appear. Consequently, on 4.9.2003 after lapse of 6 year, learned trial Court refused to grant further adjournment for prosecution evidence and recorded acquittal of the Respondents Nos, 2 to 5 on the ground that no prosecution evidence was available on file against the said respondents. The prosecution cannot be given licence to prolong the agony of the accused by avoiding to produce its evidence for an indefinite period. It is duty of the prosecution to produce the evidence as early as possible and the inordinate delay which occurred in this case justified the learned trial Court for refusing to grant further adjournment for production of prosecution evidence. As no incriminating evidence was available on file against the Respondents Nos, 2 to 5, their acquittal had rightly been recorded. This appeal is dismissed in limine.