RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J. -- The petitioner Wahid Bakhsh has moved this constitutional petition praying therein that the proceedings arising out of a case F.I.R. No. 170/78 dated 13.9.1978 pending in Court of Special Judge Anti Corruption MuItan Division, MuItan may be quashed by declaring the same without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 13.9.1978 a criminal case was registered on the statement of Hassan Bakhsh son of SuItan under section 420 P.P.C, but later on the offences under sections 468/471/465/466/467/409/109 P.P.C, were added against the petitioner and others. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he in conspiracy with other co-accused obtained a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the Habib Bank Limited, Jahanian on the basis of some forged documents. It is disclosed in the F.I.R, referred to above, Annexure A that the complainant Hassan Bakhsh received a notice from the Habib Bank Limited, Jahanian Branch on 28.8.78 asking him to pay the instalments of the loan with which he purchased fertilizer. In this connection the complainant came to the bank and there he checked up their record and it was found that that apart from him Muhammad Hussain son of Ghulam Mohammad, Abdur Rehman son of Faiz Bakhsh, Allah Bakhsh son of Allah Ditta, Wazir son of Allah Bakhsh, Imam Bakhsh son of Muhammad Yar,Ramzan son of Faiz-ul- Hassan, Falk Sher son of Mitha, Noor Mohammad son of Jamal, Azim son of Ahmed, all residents of Chak No. 115/lOR were also the persons who have obtained loan from the bank and that notices were issued to then for the return of the loan.The complainant thereupon told the management of the bank that in the names of the complainant and others a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been obtained on loan for the purpose of purchase of fertilizer. The complainant disclosed that his as well as the other applications have been forged by placing on them bogus thumb impressions, It was alleged that the whole transaction pertaining to the receipt of loan for purchase of the fertilizer was based on forgery and fraud.Thc complainant further stated that he did not place his thumb impression on the application for obtaining loan nor had he obtained any loan.
3. The principal contention of the learned counsel is that the challan in the case was submitted for trial of the accused before the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption MuItan in the year 1979 and that for the last about 9 years no progress in the trial of the petitioner has been made. The second submission of the learned counsel is that six accused including the petitioner were challaned in the case on the allegation that they had obtained in all Rs. 20,000/-as loan from the Habib Bank Limited, Jahanian and that the said amount in its entirety has been returned by the petitioner and others to the bank. In this behalf the learned counsel has placed on record the judgments of the learned Additional District Judge. MuItan Annexures B to B10 showing that the whole amount of loan has been deposited with thebank. The writ petition was admitted to regular hearing on 18.4.1987 on the ground that the petitioner has been facing trial for the last 9 years and that the prosecution has failed to produce even a single witness in the case.Learned counsel submits that there is absolutely no justification with the prosecution for not producing evidence for the conclusion of the trial during the last 9 years and that after the receipt of the loan from the petitioner it appears that the prosecution is no more interested in the trial of the petitioner.
4. S.M. Zubair, learned Additional Advocate General has appeared on behalf of the respondents. He conceded that the amount of loan received by the petitioner has been returned by him to the bank and in that behalf the learned Law Officer has admitted the correctness of the judgments of the civil Court placed on record,referred to above,showing the return of loan money to the Habib Bank Limited. He however, conceded that so for the trial has not been concluded and that no witness has been produced by the prosecution in the case. The learned Law Officer was unable to explain the delay in the conclusion of the trial of the petitioner etc.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The admitted position in the case is that the petitioner has returned the loan to the bank and this fact has been conceded by the learned Additional Advocate General.Further the challan was submitted before respondent No. 2, 9 years ago and that no progress whatsoever has been made in the trial of the petitioner for no plausible cxplanation.It is strange enough that the prosecution has not been able to produce its witnesses against the petitioner before the learned trial Court and as such the trial has been hanging fire for the last 9 years without any legal justification. It was the duty of the prosecution to produce the entire evidence in the case and thus the trial should have been concluded earlier in accordance with law. There is no justification whatsoever to allow continuance of agony of the petitioner in a case, which is pending adjudication for the last 10 years. Even the return of the loan of Rs. 20,000/- by the petitioner and others has not been denied by the learned Law Officer. The copies of the judgments placed on record show that the amount in question has already been paid and this fact has been admitted by the learned Law Officer.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No. 170/78 pending before respondent No.2 Special Judge Anti-Corruption are quashed to the extent of the petitioner on the ground of delay.The petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.