SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.---Through this appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment dated 15-3-2014 passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C. No,626/2013 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 23-B, Sindh Arms Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. For seven years with fine of Rs, 50,000 and in default whereof to suffer further S.I. For three months.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 15-6-2013 complainant Inspector Rana Pervez SHO Police Station Airport lodged FIR stating that appellant Tahir Ali during interrogation in Crime No,126 of 2013 under section 302, P.P.C. Volunteered to handover the crime weapon and then he produced a pistol along-with magazine without number from the bushes, hidden beneath the stones, for which he failed to produce any license.
3. After usual investigation, appellant was sent up to face the charge.
4. Formal charge was framed by the trial court to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 Complainant Inspector Rana Pervez and P.W.2 HC Latif Rehman and closed its side.
6. Statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed his innocence. He, however, did not examine himself on Oath nor led any evidence in his defense.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, trial Court passed the impugned Judgment whereby convicting the appellant in terms as stated above.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that impugned Judgment is against fundamental right as enshrined in Article 10/A of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan whereby the legislature has made fair trial as mandatory and such exercise was not undertaken by the trial court as appellant was not represented by counsel; instant case is off shoot of murder case; diary from R & Ps reveals that learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad entrusted instant case to VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad on 24-10-2013; charge was framed on 11-11-2013, thereafter on 28-12-2013 witnesses were not present as well on 15-1-2014 appellant was not produced by jail authorities; thereafter on 29-1-2014 all witnesses were examined and subsequently within four hearings statement of accused was recorded and appellant was convicted, hence no opportunity of representation by counsel was provided to the appellant; not a single question was asked from appellant whether he intends to engage the counsel.
9. Since learned Assistant P.-G. Has no objection if instant matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh trial with opportunity of representation by counsel to the appellant on the plea that the appellant was youthful offender and was not fully aware about consequences of trial so any fault on the part of appellant cannot be considered as fatal.
10. I have heard the respective sides and have examined the available material carefully.
11. It is worth to mention here that this was not the case of capital punishment the trial whereof is to be commenced either on engagement of the counsel or providing him a counsel on State expenses, if the accused claims to be 'pauper'. The Article 10-A of the Constitution could only be pressed where an order or judgment was passed by an authority/Court in deviation of the prescribed procedure which results into prejudice to either party because the due process has always been the golden principle administration of justice. A fair opportunity of hearing is one of the necessary requirements of administration of justice until the circumstance(s) demand otherwise. (201'2 SCMR 1235). A speedy trial cannot be termed to be an illegality rather is within meaning of instructions, so issued to enforce the National Judicial Policy, however, speedy trial should never be at the cost of the Procedure or rights for which one is, otherwise, entitled because the ultimate object of 'administration of justice' is to administer justice and not speedy disposal of a /is/case. Since the law, no where, bars a trial of an ordinary offence, not providing capital punishment, without a counsel hence this cannot be termed as an 'illegality' because if an unrepresented accused earns his acquittal then prosecution would not be allowed to seek de novo trial on this count alone. Thus, such plea is only a single sided weapon which, if allowed to hold the field, would make accused to try their luck without engaging the counsel and in case of conviction to seek de novo trial by pressing plea of being unrepresented.
12. The perusal of the record shows that the appellant was entirely unaware with the art of cross- examination hence the testimony of the witnesses could not be tested properly. Testing the veracity and credibility of the witness is undoubtedly a legal right of the accused which could be achieved through proper cross-examination. It is also a matter of the record the case, in hand, is off-shoot of the main case, which, undoubtedly, is a case of capital punishment as such a judgment in such off-shoot case may influence some of the aspects of the evidence(s) of the main case though not necessarily. The appellant/accused has been pleaded to be a young fellow who has pleaded to have been seriously been prejudiced because of not having proper knowledge of consequence of unrepresented trial and outcome of instant case on main case.
13. Without prejudice to legal position that it was not requirement of law to ask an accused to engage a counsel before trial (framing of charge) of an offence, not providing capital punishment, I, considering the fact of instant case, being off-shoot, plea of prejudice, consequence onto main case, tender age of appellant so also no objection of Assistant P.-G. For remand of the case, order that case be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh trial with opportunity of representation by counsel to the appellant.
14. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment is suspended and case is remanded back to the trial Court to proceed de novo trial with direction to provide opportunity of engaging counsel to the appellant. However, on this plea the appellant would not be entitled to delay the trial and he shall engage the counsel within one month else shall be debarred from taking such plea at any stage of the proceedings and then the trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.
The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms along with listed application.