MUHAMMAD JAN and 3 others vs THE STATE
The petitioners, who had been convicted by the trial court and sentenced to death and imprisonment for life, filed a criminal appeal along with applications for condonation of delay, pre-arrest bail, and acceptance of a compromise, while remaining proclaimed offenders and fugitives from law. The core legal questions involved whether a fugitive from law has a right of audience or appeal, whether delay could be condoned for appellants refusing to surrender, and whether a void order can be ignored without being set aside through legal channels. The Lahore High Court held that a fugitive from law loses the right of audience and appeal, and that even an allegedly void order or judgment must be formally set aside through normal legal channels rather than treated as a nullity by a party. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal in limine along with all associated miscellaneous petitions for condonation of delay, pre-arrest bail, and compromise. The key principle laid down is that fugitives from law forfeit their right of appeal and audience, and a void judicial order cannot simply be ignored by a litigant without formal legal challenge.
- Does a fugitive from law lose their right of audience and right of appeal?
- Can an appellant who refuses to surrender and remains a proclaimed offender maintain a criminal appeal?
- Must a void order or judgment be formally set aside through legal channels, or can a party simply ignore it as a nullity?
- Can an application for pre-arrest bail be entertained after the applicant has already been convicted and their appeal dismissed?
ORDER
Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 2001 The petitioners had been convicted by the learned trial Court. On 16-6-1999. They had remained absent from the learned trial Court and even after their conviction they never surrendered before the competent authorities. The petitioners are fugitives from law who have already been declared to be proclaimed offenders after taking due proceedings in that regard. The reasons urged for condonation of delay are vague and totally unsatisfactory. This miscellaneous petition seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the accompanying appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No,631 of 2001.
2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are fugitives from law who have already been declared to be proclaimed offenders by the competent forum. It is trite law that a fugitive from law not only loses his right of audience but also forfeits his right of appeal.
This appeal is also hopelessly barred by time and through our order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 2001 we have refused to condone the delay in filing of this appeal. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
3. It is important to point out here that we had asked the learned counsel for the appellants as to whether the appellants are ready to surrender before the relevant authorities and to go to jail or not, in which case we were minded to condone the delay and admit this appeal to regular hearing, but after consulting his clients the learned counsel maintained before us that the appellants are not ready to go to jail. This stubborn and contumacious conduct of the appellants, coupled with their prolonged contentment with the status of being fugitives, shows that they have scant regard for the law, the judicial process and the Courts. The present refusal by this Court to admit their appeal to regular hearing is, therefore, essentially a result which the appellants have themselves opted for. Appellant No,1 had been sentenced to death and the other appellants to imprisonment for life each by the learned trial Court. The present appeal could have been entertained only after the appellants' surrender and arrest. Our offer to entertain this appeal upon the appellants' going to jail first was meant to test the appellants' bona fide. The appellants have, however, failed in this test. They have preferred to remain fugitives rather than submitting to the normal course of the law. Their contention that their convictions in absentia were illegal and void and, therefore, they need not submit to the normal course of the law has not impressed us. It has now been long settled that even a void order or judgment is a kind of an illegal order or judgment which needs to be formally set aside through normal legal channels and it cannot be left to a party to the same to ignore it as a nullity. Such an abdication of judicial power in favour of a lay litigant can be nothing but a recipe for anarchy which cannot be permitted. The appellants in the present case have consciously chosen not to follow the normal course of the law and, thus, the responsibility for its consequences had to be shouldered by them and none else.
Criminal Miscellaneous No,2 of 2001
5. Through this miscellaneous petition the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in a case in which they have already been convicted and sentenced. In view of the dismissal of the petitioners appeal in limine by this Court today there is hardly any occasion for admitting the petitioners to pre-arrest bail. This miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
Criminal Miscellaneous No,492-M of 2001 ' This miscellaneous petition has been filed by the complainant of the criminal case in question and through this petition it has been prayed that the compromise between the parties may be accepted and the convicts-appellants may be acquitted of the charge upon acceptance of their appeal on that ground. As the appeal of the convicts has already been dismissed in limine by this Court today, therefore, there is no occasion for attending to this petition pertaining to the compromise. This miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs State through Chairman, National 2022 PLD Islamabad 13
- MAZHAR AHMED vs THE STATE and another 2012 PLJ SC 879, 2012 PSC (Crl.) 779, 2012 SCMR 997
- MAZHAR AHMAD vs STATE etc. PLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Lahore) 266