Saturday 2 June 2012

Justice Rushed is Justice Crushed

PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 851 (DB)

        Present: MUHAMMAD FARRUXH MAHMUD AND

        asif saeed khan khosa, JJ. WAZIR AHMAD-Appellant

versus

STATE-Respondent

Crl. Appeal No. 844 of 2001, heard on 23.1.2002. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

—-Art. 37 & 10—Accused was never afforded any opportunity to engageservices of a counsel to represent him before Court-Effect~Fulfilment of responsibility qua expeditious delivery of justice surely cannot beachieved at cost and altar of a Fundamental Right guaranteed by Constitution—As a matter of fact post-haste manner in which learnedtrial Court had conducted its proceedings in present case has been foundto be a circumstance which may encourage an aggrieved person to raise an eyebrow of suspicion and mistrust-It goes without saying that sometimes even most honest and competent Presiding Officers can fall prey to speed at altar of justice and best of intentions entertained by the min this regard may still not be good enough to uphold exercise undertaken by them~If 'justice delayed is justice denied' is by now a hackneyed truism or a cliche then at same time justice rushed is sometimes justice crushed-Case remanded.              [Pp. 852 & 853] A & B

Mr. Muhammad Aslam Soomra, Advocate for. Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Farooq, Advocate for State. Date of hearing: 23.1.2002.

                                                                                                                judgment

Asif Saeeed Khan Khosa, J.--Wazir Ahmad appellant wasconvicted for an offence under Section 9(b) of the Contro of Narcotic
Substances Act, 1997 vide judgment dated 10.11.2001 passed by the learnedSessions Judge, Rajanpur and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment thereof toundergo simple imprisonment for two months. The benefit under Section382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant. The allegation against the \appellant was that he was found in possession of Charas weighing 510
grams.                                                                                                         

2.  At the outset the learned counsel for the appellant has urged thatthe appellant was never afforded any opportunity to engage the services of a
learned counsel to represent him before the learned trial Court and, thus,the appellant was forced to conduct cross-examination of the prosecution    -
witnesses himself and then to address arguments in the main case beforeannouncement of the judgment. In order to verify the said contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant we have gone through the record of thelearned trial Court and have found that the Charge in this case was framed

by the learned trial Court on 1.10.2001 at a time when the appellant was ndt—^ represented by any learned counsel and then the matter was adjourned on 22.10.2001 for recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On 22.10.2001 no prosecution witness was in attendance, and therefore, the matter was adjourned to  10.11.2001. On  10.11.2001 the appellant was produced from the jail before the learned trial Court which recorded the statements of five prosecution witnesses and that of the appellant under Section 342, Cr.P.C. and then after hearing arguments the learned trial Court passed the final judgment on the same date i.e. 10.11.2001. We have    I' failed to find, anything on the record of the learned trial Court suggesting —. that the .appellant was ever afforded any opportunity to engage the services of a learned counsel to represent him.

3.   It may be true that in terms of Article 37 of the Constitutiondelivery of expeditious justice is one of the constitutional responsibilities of
the State of which the Judiciary is an Organ but at the same time it isequally true that a right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of
one's choice is a Fundamental Right enshrined in Article  10 of theConstitution. Fulfilment of responsibility qua expeditious delivery of justice-  .

A surely cannot be achieved at the cost and altar of a Fundamental Right guaranteed by the Constitution. As a matter of fact the post-haste manner in which the learned trial Court had conducted its proceedings in the present case has been found by us to be a circumstance which may encourage an aggrieved person to raise an eyebrow of suspicion and mistrust.

4.          As the trial of the appellant has been found by us to have beenvitiated by violation of bis Fundamental Right contained in Article 10 of the
Constitution, therefore, in order to foster the ends of justice we accept thisappeal and set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence recorded by the
learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur on 10.11.2001. The case of the appellant isresultantly remanded to the Court of Session, Rajanpur for retrial from the
scratch after affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity to engage theservices of a learned counsel to represent him. Without casting any aspersion
on the integrity, competence or bona fide of the learned Sessions Judge,Rajanpur we would expect that this time the appellant shall not be tried by
the learned Sessions Judge himself but instead the case of the appellant shallbe entrusted for trial to any available Additional Sessions Judge. It goeswithout t saying that sometimes  even the  most honest and competentPresident Officers can fall prey to speed at the altar of justice and the best of
intentions entertained by them in this regard may still not be good enough touphold the exercise undertaken by them. If 'justice delayed is justice denied'
is by now a hackneyed truism or a cliche then at the same time we cannotforget that justice rushed is sometimes justice crushed. Unfortunately thecase in hand appears to us to fall in the latter category.

5.          Before parting with this judgment we would like to observe thatthe matter of bail of the appellant during the post-remand proceedings shall
be attended to by the learned trial Court as and when an occasion arisestherefor and the same shall be attended to and decided strictly in accordance
with the law relevant to the subject.

(A.P.)                                                                                Case remanded.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Contact Lawyers Network

If you have any queries related with this post you can contact at lawyergolra@gmail.com

Regards,
Salman Yousaf Khan
CEO
Lawyers Network
+92-333-5339880