RASHIDA PARVEEN vs THE STATE and 4 others
This criminal appeal challenges the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Faisalabad, in favour of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 who were tried under sections 365, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising out of F.I.R. No. 517 of 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused after a lapse of six years due to the failure of the prosecution to produce its witnesses despite repeated summons and warrants. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution cannot prolong the agony of the accused indefinitely and that the trial court rightly refused further adjournments and recorded an acquittal in the absence of incriminating evidence. The court laid down the principle that it is the duty of the prosecution to produce evidence expeditiously, and inordinate delay in prosecution evidence justifies the refusal of further adjournments and leads to lawful acquittal.
- Whether the prosecution can be granted indefinite adjournments to produce evidence?
- Is the trial court justified in acquitting the accused when prosecution witnesses fail to appear for six years?
- Does inordinate delay in producing prosecution evidence justify 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 isdirected 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 F.I.R. No.517 of 1997, dated 31-5-1997, under sections 365/148/149, P.P.C. 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 summonses 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 a lapse of 6 years, 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.