GHULAM NABI, S.I. and 10 others vs SHAUKAT ALI and anothers
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by a trial court in a private complaint under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had granted an adjournment due to the absence of the accused's counsel, conditioning this adjournment upon the accused paying Rs. 4,000 as diet money to the prosecution witnesses. The core legal question was whether a criminal court possesses the statutory authority to impose a fine or 'diet money' upon an accused person solely because their counsel failed to appear for a hearing. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted beyond its jurisdiction, as no provision within the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers a court to impose such financial penalties on an accused for the absence of their counsel. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the refund of any fine already realized. The judgment emphasizes that trial courts should address delays caused by counsel absence through procedural measures like granting a final opportunity or appointing state-funded counsel, rather than imposing unauthorized fines.
- Does a criminal court have the jurisdiction to impose a fine or 'diet money' on an accused person due to the non-appearance of their counsel?
- What procedural measures should a trial court adopt to address delays caused by the absence of defense counsel in murder cases?
- Is the imposition of a financial penalty on an accused for their counsel's absence supported by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
This is an application for revision against the order dated 1.7.2004 whereby adjournment to the accused in a private complaint under Sections 302/148/149 PPC was granted subject to the payment of Rs. 4,000/- as diet money.
2. A case vide FIR No. 12 dated 19.7.2002 was registered against the petitioners for the alleged murder of Amanat Ali. Investigating Agency found the case false resulting in its cancellation.
Complainant instituted a private complaint. Process was issued. Case was listed for evidence.
Prosecution witnesses were present. Learned counsel for the accused was not in attendance.
Adjournment was allowed subject to imposition of Rs. 4,000/- as diet money, which was directed to be paid by the accused to the prosecution witnesses.
3. Learned counsel for the accused contends that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code empowering the Court to impose fine of diet money to the accused for non-appearance of learned counsel.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and the State argued that in order to prolong the agony of the respondent/complainant, learned counsel avoided appearance deliberately and there was no alternate left but to impose fine.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Petitioners are accused in the murder case. Prosecution witnesses were in attendance but were not examined on account of non-availability of learned defence, counsel. The Court had to adjourn the case perforce. There is a growing tendency of negligence in attending to murder cases which is the main cause of delay. It can be arrested by adopting the following modes:--
(i) Granting last opportunity to accused to produce his counsel.
(ii) Recording examination-in-chief of the witnesses in absence of accused counsel and reserving right of cross-examination and if not conducted on the adjourned date, then; Providing a defence counsel at state expenses.
7. Imposition of fine on accused for absence of counsel finds no place in Criminal Procedure Code.
Trial Court, thus, traveled beyond its jurisdiction. Support can also be sought from the case of Beedha accused v. Emperor through Bhagirath (A.I.R. 1922 Allahabad 184(1).
8. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Fine, if realized, should be refunded to the accused/petitioners.