1. KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, C.J.---This appeal is directed against the order passed on April 3, 1995 by the Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Mirpur, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted in a case registered against him under section 341, P.C. Read with section 15 of the Islamic Penal Laws Enforcement Act.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal briefly stated are that on the report lodged by Muhammad Iqbal, the appellant herein, a case under section 15 of the Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act was registered against Muhammad Nazir, Sajid Mahmood and Khurshid.
3. However, after investigation only accused-respondent was sent to face trial under section 341, P.C.
4. Read with section 15 of the Islamic Penal Laws Enforcement Act. In this case seven persons were cited as witnesses: Out of them besides Muhammad Iqbal complainant, Asad and Shah Nawaz were cited as witnesses of the occurrence. On December 2, 1993 statements of the complainant and Shah Nawaz P.Ws. Were recorded by the trial Court. The third witness Asad Mahmood appeared before the Court on February 8, 1994, when his statement was recorded. Out of the remaining four prosecution witnesses, one was Doctor Arfan Khan, C.M.O. Who had given medical legal report. The remaining three witnesses were Muhammad Salim Khan, S.I. Who had partly investigated the case, Faiz Akbar Khan, S.I. Police who had conducted investigation in the case and.
5. Mirza Tufail Hussain, Inspector Police. Against these four witnesses, the trial Court on March 10, 1994 passed the following order:--- As is apparent from the above-referred order, the trial Court issued non-bailable warrants against these witnesses and posted the case for April 23, 1994 for recording their evidence. On April 23, 1994, the warrants issued by the Court were not executed. The Court fixed the case for May 28, 1994 and directed the prosecution to produce these witnesses at its own responsibility. After granting some adjournments ultimately on October 15, 1994 the evidence of the prosecution was closed.
6. The case was at the stage of recording of the statement of the accused-respondent under section 342, Cr.P.C. When an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was filed on his behalf for the quashment of the case. On this application, vide order under appeal the accused-respondent was Mr. Aurangzab Khan, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in this case all the three witnesses have supported the prosecution's case which was set up by the complainant in the F.I.R.
7. The trial Court has written in its order of acquittal about the discrepancies in the statements of these witnesses, but has not disclosed any discrepancy in it. The trial Court has not given any reason in support of the impugned order. He further argued that non-bailable warrants in this case were issued against the police officials and the Doctor, who were intentionally avoiding the service.
8. It was responsibility of the trial Court to ensure that warrants of arrest issued by it were complied by the concerned authorities. The trial Court committed error in law while directing the prosecution to produce the witnesses at its own risk. According to the counsel, the accused-respondent with the connivance of the police officials manoeuvred not to get the warrants of arrest executed which action had prejudice the case of the complainant, who had sought the help of the State-agency by lodging report with the Police Station Mirpur.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
11. In our view, the order of the trial Court is not sustainable. We expect from the judicial officers to participate in the judicial proceedings with full consciousness. In the present case, the trial Court had issued non-bailable warrants on October 3, 1993 for securing presence of the remaining prosecution witnesses before it for the purpose of recording their evidence. If warrants of arrest issued by the trial Court were not executed, that had not absolved the Court from its primary responsibility to take further necessary steps to ensure the presence of these witnesses before it. It is a fundamental responsibility of the Court to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to arrive at the truth.
12. Even otherwise, the impugned order is not a speaking order. The alleged discrepancies on the basis of which the accused-respondent was acquitted in the case, were not mentioned in the order. We have repeatedly directed the Courts below that they should pass clear order to enable the Appellate Courts to have a clear idea of the reasons in support of the conclusion drawn in the case.