AMIRUDDIN KHAN Versus ATTA MOHYUD DIN KHAN

The brief facts leading to this Constitutional petition are that a case under sections 307, 325 and 34 of the P.P.C. was registered against respondents Nos. 4 to 7 with Police Station Satgarh, District Okara. The police after investigation, put up the challan in the Court of the Magistrate, Okara.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the prosecution evidence was closed on 3-5-1992 when only the Investigating Officer and the doctor remained to be examined. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Okara. The same was dismissed vide his order, dated 23-9-1992. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order closing the prosecution evidence is illegal because the learned trial Court did not adopt coercive measures to procure the attendance of the two P.Ws. Learned Assistant Advocate-General joined him and referred to The State v. Sarwar Khan and others P L D 1984 SC 428. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.4 to 7, the accused, maintained that the prosecution was provided with sufficient opportunity for production of the evidence. The learned trial Court is under no obligation to adopt coercive measures for the attendance of the P.Ws. It is for the prosecution itself to produce the witnesses when the case is fixed for evidence. It is added that this Court, vide order, dated 12-3-1992, directed the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within three months.

4. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner: The learned trial Court seems to have acted in haste while closing the evidence and failed to observe guiding principles A formulated by the Supreme Court in the case The State v. Sarwar Khan and others. It is clear from the order sheet that the file remained in this Court from 23-10-1991 and the same was received back on 25-1-1992. The case was then fixed for 22-2-1992 but none of the P.Ws. was in attendance and the case was adjourned to 12-4-1992 when the statements of three P.Ws. were recorded and the case was adjourned to 3-5-1992. The statements of two witnesses were recorded while the remaining evidence was closed.

5. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has referred to all the interim orders in the case and I have gone through them with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The fact remains that at no stage, the learned trial Court justified the adjournments and failed to resort to coercive measures for the attendance of the P.Ws. Even the prosecution was not warned 8 to complete the evidence. The order suffers from illegality. The Court has failed to exercise powers vested in it without any justification.

6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is accepted and the IC imputed orders dated 3-5-1992 and 23-9-1992 are set aside.

7. The learned trial Court shall proceed in accordance with the guiding I D principles formulated by the Supreme Court in the case The State v. Sarwarl p Khan and others and conclude the trial by 30-11-1993.

8. The learned trial Court to submit fortnightly reports as to the progress of the case to the Registrar of this Court.

N.H.Q./M-1229/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.