MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs MUHAMMAD SHER and 4 others
This appeal was filed against the acquittal of respondents in a criminal case. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to secure the attendance of prosecution witnesses through coercive measures, despite the respondents being named in the FIR and an injured eyewitness having sustained a hatchet injury. The respondents argued that the appellant had previously obtained a High Court order directing the trial court to conclude the trial within six months. Consequently, the trial court had exhausted all legal avenues, including issuing non-bailable warrants, to procure witness attendance but failed due to the prosecution's inaction. The High Court observed that the appellant, having secured a time-bound direction for the trial's conclusion, could not now complain about the trial court's compliance with that order. Emphasizing that a speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused, the Court held that the trial court acted correctly in acquitting the respondents after the prosecution failed to produce evidence within the mandated timeframe. The appeal was dismissed.
- Can an appellant who obtains a court order for a time-bound trial subsequently challenge the acquittal resulting from the prosecution's failure to produce evidence within that timeframe?
- Is a trial court justified in acquitting accused persons when the prosecution fails to produce witnesses despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants?
- Does the right to a speedy trial justify the acquittal of an accused when the prosecution fails to produce evidence within the court-mandated period?
ORDER
' In support of this appeal against acquittal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondents were specifically named in the FIR.. That injured eye-witness received injury with hatchet on his head but in spite of that learned trial Court acquitted the respondents,, that learned trial Court was under legal obligation to procure the attendance of the P.Ws. While using all coercive measures which has not been done and that order of trial Court is illegal in these circumstances of the case.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that p resent appellant had himself filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,788 of Cr1/2002 which was disposed of by my learned brother Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J. On 21-2-2002 directing the trial Court to conclude the trial in this case within six months, that trial Court adopted all legal possible measures for the attendance of the prosecution witnesses, even non-bailable warrants of arrest of witnesses were also issued but they were nor produced before the trial Court, so trial 'Court was duty bound to have acquitted the accused-respondents.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State also concedes the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents and supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, it seems that appellant was too clever. The case was registered against the accused-respondents on 12-10-2001 and when the case was under trial he himself tiled Criminal Miscellaneous No,788/Cr1/2002 before this Court and got directions that trial Court should conclude the trial within six months. The trial Court is a Judicial Magistrate Section 30, and he was under legal obligations to comply with the order of this Court passed in the, above noted Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Many opportunities were granted to the prosecution to produce the evidence and the file shows that non-bailable warrants of arrest were also issued against the P.Ws. But the prosecution failed to produce the witnesses in Court.
Speedy trial is a right of an accused and moreover, after the direction of this Court obtained by the appellant himself, no case for interferences is made out and even the learned State Counsel has also supported the judgment of the trial Court and the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents. Resultantly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.