MUHAMMAD FARID vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Farid. The core legal question concerns the expeditious conclusion of trial proceedings where eye-witness evidence has already been recorded and the trial judge is disinclined to hear the matter despite directions from the High Court. The court dismissed the petition as not pressed upon the statement of the petitioner's counsel that he would not press the petition provided a direction is issued for the completion of the trial in the shortest possible time. The holding of the court is that the petition stands dismissed as not pressed, with a concurrent direction for the expeditious completion of the trial proceedings.
- Can a criminal petition be dismissed as not pressed upon the request of the petitioner's counsel?
- Whether the Supreme Court can issue directions for the expeditious completion of trial proceedings upon withdrawal of a petition?
ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in this case there are two eye-witnesses whose evidence is recorded by the trial Court and not much time is required in the disposal of the case in the trial Court except for a development that learned Sessions Judge does not want to hear this case and there is a direction from the High Court for hearing and completion of the trial proceedings. Learned counsel further states that he would not press this petition if there is a direction for completion of the trial in shortest possible time. Order accordingly.
2. ' In the result, the petition is dismissed as not pressed.