GHULAM NABI, SUB-INSPECTOR POLICE and 10 others vs SHAUKAT ALI and another
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Trial Court in a private complaint case under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Trial Court had granted an adjournment to the accused due to the absence of their counsel, but conditioned this adjournment on the payment of Rs. 4,000 as 'diet money' to the prosecution witnesses. The core legal question was whether a Trial Court possesses the jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to impose a fine or 'diet money' on an accused person for the non-appearance of their defense counsel. The High Court held that the Trial Court acted beyond its jurisdiction, as no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 authorizes the imposition of such a fine. The Court emphasized that while trial delays caused by defense counsel negligence must be addressed, the appropriate remedies include granting a last opportunity, recording evidence while reserving the right to cross-examine, or appointing state-funded counsel, rather than imposing unauthorized fines. The impugned order was set aside.
- Does a Trial Court have the legal authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to impose a fine or diet money on an accused for the absence of their defense counsel?
- What measures can a Trial Court adopt to address delays caused by the non-appearance of defense counsel in criminal cases?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---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, P.P.C. Was granted subject to the payment of Rs,4,000 as diet money.
2. A case vide F.I.R. 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 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 per force. 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:-- ' Granting last opportunity to accused to produce his counsel.
(ii) Recoding examination-in-chief of the witnesses in absence of accused counsel and reserving right to cross-examination and it not conducted on the adjourned date, then;
(iii) 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, travelled beyond its jurisdiction. Support can also be sought from the case of Beedha-accused v. Emperor through Bhagirath AIR 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.
Cited by 1 case
- Abdul Majeed alias Muhammad Iqbal vs The State 2021 YLR 2301