ABDUL HAMID vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition directed against the Lahore High Court's order dismissing an application for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in multiple cases. The petitioner faced several cases under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before a Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. Initially discharged under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to a lack of sanction, proceedings were later revived after the sanction was produced, leading to conviction in one case and subsequent appeals being dismissed. When the remaining cases resumed years later, the petitioner sought quashment on the ground of long delay. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that delay per se, without fault by the accused, is insufficient for quashing proceedings. The core legal question concerned whether proceedings should be quashed solely due to prolonged delay when the record was unavailable. The Supreme Court held that the delay was adequately explained by the unavailability of the record for several years, justifying the refusal to quash the proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Does delay per se, without fault on the part of the accused person, constitute sufficient ground for quashing criminal proceedings?
- Is the unavailability of the judicial record for several years considered a valid explanation for trial delay?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 249, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.---This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 362/Q of 1971. By this order, a learned Single Judge has dismissed the application for quashment of the proceedings.
2. There are 9 cases pending against the petitioner under section 409, P. P. C. Before the learned Special Judge, Anti --Corruption, Rawalpindi. The case of the petitioner is that the learned Special Judge concluded the prosecution and defence evidence but finding that the sanction has not been obtained, discharged the petitioner of his bail bond by order dated the 31st January 1962, under section 249, Cr. P. C. Two days later, the prosecution was able to produce the sanction.
3. Thereupon, the learned Special Judge proceeded only with one case and convicted the petitioner on the 31st March 1962. The petitioner's appeal, in the High Court, was dismissed in May 1967. His application for special leave to appeal before this Court was also dismissed. Thereafter the remaining cases came up before the learned Special Judge for hearing in April 1971, and he has started proceedings in all the remaining 8 cases. The petitioner moved an application for quashment of the proceedings on the ground of long delay. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the application on the ground that delay per se even if it is without any fault on the part of accused person, is no ground for quashing the proceedings. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in the cases of M. S. Khawaja v. The State (PLD1965SC287) and Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzamal Khan and others (PLO1967SC317). The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are satisfied that the delay in this case was due to the fact that the record was not available for several years. This is a good explanation. In these circumstances, the High Court was perfectly justified in not quashing the proceedings. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- JUMMA vs Maulvi MUBARAK 1971 SCMR 779