1. This is an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. By Mst. Ismat Nisar, Mst. Ghulab Bano, Maqbool Hussain, Mst. Afzal Khatoon, Muhammad Rates, Phul Bahar, Mst. Resham Khatoon, Mst. Alam Khatoon, Amir Khan, Haq Nawaz and Hakam Khan, for the quashment of proceedings under sections 148. 307/366/436/149, P. P. C. Pending against them in the Court of Mr. A.I Safdar Kazmi, Assistant Commissioner, Jhelum.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that early in the morning on 14-9-1966, one Sher Jang lodged an F.I.R. No. 51 at Police Station Kallar Kahar, District Jhelum, alleging that present petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 alongwith Mian Khan and Muhammad Khan (not petitioners in the present application) came to the house of the complainant at about sunrise, committed rioting, set the house of the complainant on fire and allegedly abducted Mst. Feroze Bi (grand-daughter of the complainant) and Mst. Anar Bi (daughter-in-law, of the complainant). Consequently a case under sections 149, 307/366/436/149, P. P. C. Was registered against the petitioners.
2. Another F.I.R. (No. 52) was lodged on the same evening at about 5-00 p.m. By Muhammad Hussain, a grand son of aforementioned Sher Jang. Most of the accused persons named in this F. I. R. Were the same as those mentioned in the earlier F.I.R. No. 51. In other words two First Inform--ation Reports were lodged about the same incident by Sher Jang and his grand son Muhammad Hussain respectively. For some reasons, however, action was taken on F. I. R. No. 52 rather swiftly and petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11, alongwith Mian Khan and Muhammad Khan were committed to stand their trial vide an order of the Inquiry Magistrate dated 29-5-1968. They were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum who by his judgment dated 30-11-1968 found all of them to be guilty. Mian Khan and Muhammad Khan were sentenced to death under section 302/ 149, P. P. C. And to transportation for life under section 439/149, P. P. C. The remaining accused who are petitioners in the present application were also convicted under the above-noted sections but they were sentenced to transportation for life fur both the offences. The conviction of Mian Khan and Khan Muhammad was confirmed by the High Court. All the other accused (the present petitioners) were acquitted of the charges under sections 148, 302/436/149, P. P. C. Except that the conviction of Hakam Khan petitioner No. 11 was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to that already undergone by him. The appeal filed by Mian Khan and Muhammad Khan in the Supreme Court was dismissed. The matter in respect of F.I.R. No. 52 thus, stands finally settled.
3. As against this the case registered vide F. I. R. No. 51 is still lingering on, even though six years have passed the case is still pending in the trial Court and not even a single witness has so far been examined.
4. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of delay. He also urged that as far as the offences under sections 148, 307/436/149, P. P. C. Are concerned, the petitioners have already stood their trial and to try them again in pursuance of F. I. R. No. 51, would be hit by the provisions of section 403, Cr. P. C. In support of the first contention he relied on Muhammad Hussain v. State (PLD 1959 Lah. 322) wherein it was observed by Mr. Justice S. A. Mahmood, as follows:-- "If the prosecution does not take care to see that a case against an accused person is proceeded with expeditiously and allows it to linger on inordinately or delays its progress, the fault must lie sit its door, whether for non-production of sanction, the witnesses, the co-accused from jail, or by frequent transfers Of case from Court to Court, by change of law or by the conduct of the prosecutor it is mockery of law to allow criminal cases to proceed for four or five years without any progress. It is revolting to the conscience of a Judge under any system of law that a criminal case should take so long and still not be decided . . . . . . . . . . . If the prosecution fails persistently without reasonable cause to produce its witnesses, or seeks adjournments unjustifiably, it is the duty of a Court to proceed to judgment expeditiously and without unnecessary delay. Justice delayed is justice denied for the defence of the accused must suffer by lapse of time and the prosecution may also suffer likewise. A fair and speedy trial is the essence and essential of judicial administration in a civilized country. Protracted proceedings as in this case are a mockery of the law and must be deemed to be an abuse of process of Court."
5. These observations of his Lordship have been consistently relied upon by different Courts.
6. Reference in this connection may be made as follows:-
(1) Wali Muhammad v. The State PLD 1959 Pesh. 191;
(2) Muhammad Rafi Parwez v. The State PLD 1960 Lah. 986;
(3) The State v. Ghulam Hussain and others PLD 1963 Kar. 679;
(4) Abdul Haque v. The State PLD 1964 Lah. 246;
(5) Amanullah Khan and others v. The State PLD 1965 Kar. 310; and
(6) Stare v. Pario 1972 P Cr. L J 915.
7. The present case is pending in the trial Court for about six years without a single prosecution witness having been examined. The proceed--ings can be quashed on the ground of delay alone and the other grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners need not be considered. As such, respectfully following the above-mentioned authorities, I quash the proceedings in the criminal case based on F. I. R. No. 51, under sec--tions 148, 307/366/436/149, P. P. C. Pending in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner, Jhelum. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.