This petition is admitted to regular hearing and is being disposed of today as a notice case, with the consent of the parties.
2. The two petitioners are facing trial in the Court of Syed Anwar Hussain, Magistrate Section 30 at Lahore for the alleged commission of offences punishable under section 307/148/149, P.P.C.
3. They seek quashment of the said trial on the ground that despite a lapse of more than three years not a single prosecution witness had been examined at the trial; that Latif, the injured eye- witness of the occurrence in question had stated before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation that Waris Iqbal petitioner was not responsible for the injury caused on his person as a result of which statement the police had placed Waris Iqbal petitioner in Column No.2 of the challan; that three eye-witnesses of the occurrence in question, namely, Javed Iqbal, Muhammad Zaki Lone and Nasim Ahmad had also stated before the Investigating Officer as also before the learned trial Magistrate during the course of proceedings in a bail petition of the present petitioners that they were not present at the place of occurrence and had not witnessed the same; that no crime-empty having been seized from the spot, the recovery of revolver from Waris Iqbal petitioner was of no consequence; that on at least two occasions, the Presiding officer including the present Presiding Officer of the learned trial Court had given last opportunities to the prosecution to produce their witnesses and still no P.W. Had been produced at the trial and finally that in the circumstances the proceedings pending against the petitioners were a clear abuse of the process of law wherefore the same deserved to be quashed.
4. About the delay in the conclusion of the trial in question, suffice it to say that delay per se has never been considered sufficient to quash criminal proceedings.
5. As for the submission that the injured witness and the other eye--witnesses had absolved the two petitioners of their liability towards the commission of the offence in question, it is a settled principle of law that the prosecution cannot be stifled and foreclosed only on the strength of some alleged statements made by the eye-witnesses before the Police Officer during the course of investigation.
6. Consequently, I find no merit in this petition, which must accordingly fail.
7. But before I part with this judgment, I must express my deep concern over the long period of time for which the trial in question has remained pending with the learned trial Court without the examination of even a single witness for the prosecution. This state of affairs, to say the least, is appalling.
8. In his report submitted to this Court, the learned trial Magistrate has no doubt mentioned certain other factors also which have contributed towards the non-examination of prosecution witnesses but the fact remains that the delay in question is primarily attributable to the non-appearance of the P.Ws. Before the learned trial Court.
9. The learned subordinate Courts must bear in mind that administration of justice is essentially the obligation of the Courts of law. The agencies such as the police, the prosecutors and the process- servers are merely instruments provided to the Courts of law for their assistance in the discharge of this obligation.
10. The Courts of law cannot, therefore, abdicate their powers and duties in favour of these agencies and become passive spectators in the administration of I justice or sit only as dummies placed in the citadel of justice who are incapable of doing anything on their own and are at the complete mercy of others for the performance of their functions.
11. The fate of trials cannot be left to be decided either by the prosecution or by the process-serving agencies. If such a course of action was permitted then the same would lead to judicial anarchy where the trials would be decided by the prosecutors, the S.H.Os. And the process-servers and not by the Courts of law.
12. It is to avoid such situations that the law has bestowed ample powers on the Courts of law to ensure and even to compel the appearance of persons before them including witnesses and the accused persons. Reference may be made to sections 87, 88 and 90 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
13. The trial Courts cannot be permitted to acquit or discharge accused persons only on the ground that the prosecution witnesses are not offering themselves for examination by the learned trial Courts unless of course it is demonstrated that the trial Court concerned has exhausted all the powers available to it under the law to enforce the appearance of such witnesses. The mere fact that the prosecution has not produced its witnesses does Dot absolve the trial Court of its obligation to enforce the attendance of such witnesses.
14. The learned trial Courts should not remain contented only with issuance of summonses or warrants for securing the presence of witnesses or the accused persons or by repeating these processes in case the ones earlier issued remain unserved or unexecuted.
15. If the summonses or warrants issued, by the Courts remain unserved or unexecuted, then the learned trial Courts should examine the persons who were deputed to serve or execute the same and then take action against the delinquents after identifying the cause.
16. It must be observed that any in-action or negligence by such persons amounts to obstructing the course of justice and should be accordingly dealt with.
17. In the present case, I would direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial in question within two months of the receipt of this order even if that involves taking up of proceedings from day to day.
18. The S.H.O. Of Police Station New Anarkali Lahore is directed to ensure that all the P.Ws. Of the present case are available to the learned trial Court as and when directed.
19. In case the trial in question is not concluded as directed above, the learned trial Court shall submit its report to this Court explaining the reasons of the non-compliance of this order.
20. Copies of this order shall be sent to the learned trial Court, the S.S.P. Of Lahore and the S.H.O. Of Police Station New Anarkali, Lahore, for information and compliance.
21. In view of what has been noticed, observed and directed above, this petition is dismissed.