MUHAMMAD UMAIR vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 183 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD UMAIR VS State Ss. 11EE(4), 21-L & Fourth Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 512, 87 & 88---Proscription of person---Conviction in absentia---Fair trial---Scope---Accused placed in Fourth Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, violating terms of his bond by absconding---Prosecution case was that the name of accused was placed on the list of Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, however, by violating the terms and conditions of the surety bonds submitted by him, he proceeded to foreign country and shifted there---Trial of the accused was carried out in his absence---Perusal of the record reflected that the personal attendance of the accused was not dispensed with rather he was tried and convicted in absentia without pleader of his own choice---Right to be represented by counsel of own choice was given by the Constitution of Pakistan, under Art. 10(1)---Further, there was possibility that the accused did not deliberately evade the process of criminal justice system, because his failure to appear before the trial Court, as and when required by the Trial Court, was due to lack of knowledge or some other reasons beyond his control---Even otherwise, if it was assumed that as a means to circumvent the process of criminal justice system, the accused deliberately absconded, even in that eventuality he could not have been tried and convicted in absentia---Rather, Trial Court could merely record evidence against him as envisaged under S. 512, Cr.P.C., after satisfying itself by adhering to the provisions of Ss. 87/88, Cr.P.C., that the accused had, in fact, absconded himself and there was no likelihood of his joining the trial proceedings in near future---Purpose of S. 512, Cr.P.C., was merely to preserve the evidence of a witness for an eventuality where protection was given to the deposition of such witness who might not be alive at the time of appearance of the accused or might have become incapable of giving evidence or attendance of said witness could not be procured without any delay, expense or inconvenience---Trial conducted in absentia violated both constitutional guarantees enshrined under Arts. 4, 8, 9, 10 & 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, and principles of natural justice---Thus, the trial of the accused in absentia was illegal, unwarranted and of no legal effect---Hence, appeal was allowed by setting aside impugned judgment and case was remanded to the Trial Court for its retrial in accordance with the law.

MUHAMMAD UMAIR vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 183 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ