NAWAB DIN vs ANWAR KAMAL SHAH and 2 others
This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment dated 5-7-1999, which acquitted the respondents, Anwar Kamal Shah and Haider Jamal. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted prematurely and improperly by closing the prosecution's case without making sufficient efforts to secure the attendance of essential prosecution witnesses. The record revealed that the trial court failed to issue further processes for the attendance of the complainant and other witnesses after the process server requested additional time. Instead, the trial court accepted the Investigating Officer's statement regarding the inability to trace witnesses and immediately closed the prosecution's side, recorded the respondents' statements under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and announced the acquittal on the same day. The High Court held that the trial court failed to make proper efforts to procure the attendance of the witnesses. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned judgment, remanded the case for re-examination of the complainant and witnesses, and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring the attendance of witnesses before closing the prosecution's case.
- Can a trial court close the prosecution's case without making sufficient efforts to secure the attendance of essential witnesses?
- Is a judgment of acquittal liable to be set aside if the trial court fails to issue proper processes for the attendance of prosecution witnesses?
- Does the failure to trace witnesses due to lack of proper addresses justify the immediate closure of the prosecution's case?
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' By this Criminal Acquittal Appeal, appellant Nawab Din has assailed judgment dated 5-7-1999, whereby respondents Anwar Kamal Shah and Haider Jamal were acquitted.
2. The main grievance of the complainant is that the learned Judge has disposed of his case hurriedly and has not issued any process for his attendance as well as the attendance of P.Ws.
Nawab Din, Bashir Ahmed, Shakil Ahmed, Abdul Bari and Dr. Muhammad Shaft Mandvi.
3. I have gone through the R&P as well as judgment.
4. The statement of process server Inspector Muhammad Nadeem recorded on 12-9-1998 shows that he had requested for further time to execute summons upon the abovementioned P.Ws. As well as the Investigating Officer Inspector Wajahat Hussain. Thereafter, no further process was handed over to the said process server, but it was on 5-7-1997, Inspector Wajahat Hussain, Investigating Officer of the case, was examined, who had stated that the above P.Ws. Could not be traced for want of their proper addresses and he produced statements of private persons, namely, Shahid, Jamil Ahmed and Muhammad Zareef in respect of the same. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judge did not pass any order on the statement of Investigating Officer about the service being proper or improper and did not repeat the process but recorded statement of Investigating Officer Inspector Wajahat Hussain on the same day. So much so that the side of the prosecution was closed and statements of respondents were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And the judgment was announced on the said date.
5. M/s. Ali Akbar for the respondents and Dilawar Hussain for the State initially concede that the learned trial Court has not made proper efforts for procuring the attendance of the above witnesses, as such they have no objection if the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-examination of the complainant and the abovementioned witnesses.
6. Accordingly judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court. The learned counsel for the Appellants undertakes to produce complainant and the abovementioned witnesses on 4-4-2000 before the trial Court, on which date respondents Anwar Kamal Shah and Haider Jamal should also be present before the trial Court. The trial Court would further proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose of the same within three months.