| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2064 2023 SLD 2064 = 2023 PLD 334 |
Criminal Revision No. 91 of 2022, decided on 22nd July, 2022.
Before Ch. Abdul Aziz, J
Dr. Zaheer-ud-Din Babar, Rai Tajamal Hussain and Barrister Abdulla Babar Awan for Petitioners. Malik Waheed Anjum for
Respondents. Ms. Memoona Ehsan-ul-Haq, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd July, 2022.
NADEEM SULTAN and another---Petitioners
VERSUS
HAMZA SHAMIM and 2 others---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 344 , 47 , 344(1) , 249
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 47 , 2(c) , 4(m)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 10_A
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 344---Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings---Sine die adjournment--Scope---Case had been adjourned sine die solely because one of the co-accused had not been arrested yet---Validity---Such reason alone did not justify the sine die adjournment of the case to the extent of the petitioners---Accused had a right to an expeditious decision in a criminal case and the pending lis could not have been used as a sword of damocles through a sine die adjournment---Continuation of the trial in the normal course would have served the ends of justice better---Although one of the co-accused was still at large, no one could say with certainty when the police would apprehend him---Recording of the prosecution evidence would have preserved the statements of the prosecution witnesses---If any of them were unavailable due to death or for any other reason upon the arrest of the absconding co-accused, their deposition could be legally brought on record in accordance with Art. 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Impugned order was set aside, in circumstances.
Sadullah and another v. The State PLD 2018 Bal. 39 rel.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 344---Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings---Scope---Section 344(1) of the Cr.P.C. lays down guidelines for the postponement or adjournment of a case---It prohibits the Sessions Court from adjourning a case without specifying a date or for an indefinite period---Use of the expression "from time to time" in the provision indicates that the case can only be adjourned for a specific date and not indefinitely---Adjournment can only be made due to the absence of witnesses or for any other reasonable cause---Therefore, the Sessions Judge is empowered to adjourn the case from time to time and, if necessary or advisable, for a specific date---Section 344(1) explicitly states that the case must be adjourned to a specific date and the provision restrains the Sessions Judge from adjourning or postponing a case indefinitely.