KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The petitioner is present in person. He was called for specially from Lyallpur Jail at his own request, to enable him to personally plead his case before me. I have heard him at great length. I had ordered on 9-2-1971 that his Case No. 5/68 pend ing in the Court of Resident Magistrate, Kamalia should be disposed of within one month. His grievance is that it is not yet been disposed of although a full year has passed. I have made a thorough inquiry in that connection and have also called a report from the High Court office as well as the Deputy Com missioner Lyallpur (which have been placed on the record). It appears from the report that the delay was caused due to two reasons:

(1) That the petitioner had made a number of applications both to the High Court and to the Governor's Inspection Team the disposal of which took considerable time. The Governor's Inspection Team sent the file back to the Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur and intimated the Registrar of this Court vide memo. dated 9-6-1971. The file however kept on lying in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur and was not sent to the earned trial Court. The Deputy Commissioner has reported that the file has been lying in the office due to the negligence of the Peshi Clerk. He has also informed the Additional Advocate. General that action is being taken against the Peshi Clerk and that he had been placed under suspension.

2. The petitioner has made an application under section 491, Cr. P'. C. alleging that he is under illegal detention, inasmuch as he is not the actual, person who committed the offences; that his name is not mentioned in the F. I. R.; that in spite of repeated applications made by him to the relevant authorities, no identi fication parade was held by the police and that it cannot there fore be said that the prosecution witnesses who appeared at the trial had identified him correctly. I have considered this plea but I am of the view that to give a finding on this question at this stage would tantamount to prejudging the case, specially when the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses had been recorded. The trial has finished and only the judgment remains to be given by the learned trial Magistrate. I, therefore, reject this application under section 491; Cr. P. C. However, I direr A the learned trial Magistrate that in view of the delay already caused, he should give special priority to this case and decide it within 15 days on receipt of this order so that the petitioner can file an appeal and that a on should not be prolonged.

I direct the office that a copy of this order should be des patched to the learned trial Magistrate by a Registered Acknow ledgment Due post on the every date that it is received by the office so that the petitioner may not make a grievance about delay in the transmission of the order to the learned trial Magistrate.

3. Before parting with the case I may observe that three more cases are pending in Lahore against the petitioner. As he is under detention since a considerable period, the trial of those cases should also be finished expeditiously. I have already ordered on 9-2-1971, that after the completion of Case No. 5/68 at kamalia, the petitioner should be sent to Lahore Jail where all the three cases should be heard by the same learned Magistrate and be disposed of within a period of six months at the most. In view of the hardship of the petitioner special efforts should be made by the prosecution Branch and it should be ensured that no time is lost in the production of witnesses and the completion of the trial of cases against him.

4. A copy of this order should also be sent to the petitioner at Lyallpur Jail free of costs.

Order accordingly.