ABDUL SATTAR and 5 others vs THE STATE through Shamsuddin Junejo, Inspector FIA, Crime Circle, Hyderabad
This criminal miscellaneous matter concerns an application filed by the accused persons challenging the trial court's dismissal of their acquittal application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in summarily rejecting the acquittal application without addressing the twenty-four grounds raised by the applicants, particularly given that the case had been pending since 2001 without a single prosecution witness being examined. The High Court observed that the trial court's impugned order failed to consider the merits of the grounds raised. Consequently, the High Court directed the trial court to conclude the recording of prosecution evidence within a period of six months. The court held that if the prosecution fails to conclude its evidence within this stipulated timeframe, the applicants are granted the liberty to re-file their application under Section 249-A, which must then be decided by the trial court in accordance with the law. This ensures the right to a speedy trial while maintaining the procedural integrity of the acquittal mechanism.
- Can a trial court dismiss an application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without considering the grounds raised by the accused?
- What is the appropriate remedy when a trial court fails to examine prosecution witnesses for a prolonged period?
- Can the High Court set a time limit for the conclusion of prosecution evidence in a pending criminal trial?
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, J.---The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved on behalf of the applicants for their acquittal but the learned trial Court rejected such application vide its order dated 7-10-2009 without considering any single ground out of total 24 grounds which were taken by the applicants in their application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submits that the challan of the case was submitted before the learned trial Court in the year 2001 and since then the applicants are attending the court from far-off places including Lahore, Mirpur Mathelo, Sukkur, Dadu and Karachi, but not a single, witness has been examined by the prosecution till this time, therefore, it will be a futile exercise to further delay this old matter specially when there is no possibility/probability of the applicants/accused being convicted of any offence.
2. The perusal of the impugned order no doubt reveals that the grounds which the applicants had raised in their application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Were not taken into consideration while dismissing such application and the learned trial Court in its same order directed the investigating Officer to attend before the Court and procure the attendance of all the witnesses.
3. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants would be satisfied if the trial Court is directed A either to record the evidence of prosecution witnesses within a short period or to decide the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. On its merit. This submission is however not without justification in circumstances of this case and accordingly, the learned trial Court is directed to record and conclude the prosecution evidence within a period of six months from receipt of this order and in case such evidence is not concluded within the stipulated period, the applicants shall be at liberty to repeat the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Which shall be decided by the learned trial Court in accordance with law.
4. The present Criminal Miscellaneous stands disposed of in the above terms.