' The petitioner has brought this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking directions to the effect that the learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi/respondent No,1 has no judicial power to cause interference into a Session trial pending adjudication before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, especially on the move of Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi, which amounts to interference in the judicial functions of the learned trial Court, creating confusion and making under trial apprehensive that he may not get fair trial.
2. The facts forming the background of this petition are that the petitioner, Akhlaque Ahmad, was subjected to act of sodomy on 6-5-1994, for which case F.I.R. No,120 was got registered on his behalf for an offence under section 377, P.P.C. Read with section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No,VII of 1979 at Police Station Mandra, District Rawalpindi against Sher Afzal, Sultan Mahmood and one Abdul Qadir. That during the course of the trial of the aforesaid case on 26-6-1995, F.I.R. Bearing No,335 was got registered under section 302/324, P.P.C.
By Bostan Khan against the petitioner, Akhlaque Ahmad, at Police Station Gujjar Khan with the allegations that the petitioner had committed Qatal-e-Amd of Sultan Mahmood due to the motive that he intended to avenge his insult in the case of sodomy. Both the cases, the one under section 377, P.P.C. Read with section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and the other under section 302/324, P.P.C. Were pending adjudication in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujjar Khan which were got transferred by the petitioner through Criminal Miscellaneous No,17/T-96 to the Court of Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad Khan Jhawari, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, who is presently seized of the said cases which were fixed before the said Court today i,e, 14-7-1997.
3. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has alleged that on a move made by the S.S.P., Rawalpindi addressed to the learned District and Sessions Judge/respondent No,1 in this petition, the later had directed Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad Khan Jhawari, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi to dispose of the case pertaining to the murder pending against the petitioner in that Court on day to day basis in accordance with law under intimation to learned Sessions Judge/respondent No,
1. It has further been alleged that the said move by the S.S.P., Rawalpindi was made on the instructions of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of Pakistan whom the accused facing the trial in the murder case had complained that notwithstanding the fact that the prosecution witnesses had been attending the learned trial Court yet the evidence of not a single witness had been recorded in the last six months.
4. The Prime Minister of Pakistan being the Chief Executive of the Country having been approached with a legitimate grievance by the accused in the murder case in good faith impressed upon the concerned functionaries to attend to the grievance and to expedite the disposal of the murder case. The sole anxiety of the Prime Minister in doing so was to ensure that the justice was made available to the accused expeditiously. There is no warrant for attributing any mala fides to the Prime Minister or to the other functionaries who conveyed the desire of the Prime Minister to dispose of the murder case expeditiously in accordance with law.
5. Doubtlessly, after the separation of the judiciary from the executive, no executive functionary of the Government can interfere in any way or under any pretext in the administration of justice by any Court. Nor it is conceivable that the S.S.P. Could take up the matter such as the one under examination with the learned Sessions Judge and ask him to expedite the disposal of the case. The request of the S.S.P. Made to the learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi/respondent No,1, in the petition, has to be viewed only in the light of the direction he received from the Prime Minister of Pakistan to see that the case of the accused was disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Had there been no such direction from the Prime Minister, the S.S.P., Rawalpindi would certainly not have addressed the letter complained of by the petitioner. As aforesaid, no mala fides can be attributed to the Hon'ble Prime Minister either. He only sought to have the cases decided expeditiously and that too in accordance with law. It is wholly absurd to conceive that the Prime Minister was actuated by bad faith in conveying his earnest desire to the concerned quarters. He acted, as head of the Government in a true Islamic spirit and in good faith. The whole matter has, therefore, to be examined in this background. The grievance of the petitioner is that no such direction as has been issued in the murder case has been issued in the case in which he is the victim of sodomy at the hands of the accused party and that if the murder case has to be disposed of expeditiously the other case in which he was the victim also ought to have been directed to be disposed of expeditiously. It is nobody's case that the Prime Minister was aware of the other case also and he designedly omitted to take notice of the same. Had the same been brought to his notice, there is no reason to believe that he would not have taken notice of the same. The learned counsel appearing in support of the petition argued that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued by this Court that both the cases i,e, the murder case as also the case under section 377, P.P.C. Read with section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, are directed to be proceeded with and decided expeditiously and simultaneously.
6. Keeping in view the dictates of justice and being fair to both the parties, it is directed that the learned trial Court i,e, Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad Khan Jhawari, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi shall proceed with the trial of both the cases as expeditiously as he can and dispose of the same in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any consideration whatever.
7. But for the fact, that the S.S.P., Rawalpindi only acted in the matter so as to convey the desire of the Prime Minister to decide the murder case expeditiously and in accordance with law, I would have proceeded to take action against him for his interference in the administration of justice yet in the background of the case as discussed above I direct that a copy of this order should be sent to the S.S.P., Rawalpindi to be careful in future and not to cause any interference in the trial of cases by any judicial forum. The learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, may also be sent a copy of this order to be careful so that he does not also cause any interference in the trial of the case in the Court of Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad Khan Jhawari. The latter Court shall proceed with the trial of both the cases and dispose of the same as early as possible so that the accused in both the cases are brought to book and justice is done to the parties aggrieved.
8. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.