Habib Ullah son of Inayat Ullah, Ansari, resident of Kot War, was tried under sections 380, 411 and 457, P.P.C. By Malik Masud Ahmad, Magistrate First Class, Sheikhupura, who, vide his judgment dated 8-6-1987, convicted him under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. He challenged his conviction and sentence in the Sessions Court but his appeal was dismissed by Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, vide order dated 22-12-1988. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:- " .... As many as twelve adjournments were granted to the appellant's counsel for addressing arguments. Today the appellant and his learned counsel were waited upon for sufficiently a long time but none of them has entered appearance. It appears that the appellant has absconded. A fugitive from law is not entitled to the indulgence of the Court and that being so, this appeal stands dismissed."
2. Having gone through the record I find that the impugned order is perverse. The record was received in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge on 7-9-1987. Thereafter, the .; case witnessed seventeen adjournments before 22-12-1988 when the appeal was dismissed. On each of the intervening dated the appellant and/or his counsel were present but the case was adjourned on each date either on the request of the counsel for the appellant or due to non--availability of the Additional Sessions Judge. The conduct of the Additional Sessions Judge in giving frequent adjournments is, strongly appreciated. The petitioner made default in appearance only on one date, i.e. The 22nd of December, 1988, when the appeal was dismissed. After the impugned order was announced, the accused appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge soon after as is apparent from the note under the impugned order. He was arrested and sent to jail to serve out the unexpired portion of his sentence. The impugned order has been passed in hot haste without going into the merits of the ease. Even if the appellant or his counsel had not appeared a duty was cast on the Court to examine the evidence before passing an adverse order. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Since Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, seems biased against the petitioner, the appeal is entrusted to the learned Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law before 31st March, 1989. Record be sent back immediately.
Meanwhile the petitioner is released on bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhupura.