' By this single judgment in Criminal Miscellaneous No,11 of 1997 (Sona Khan v. The State), I am going to dispose of connected Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.12/97, 13/97 and 18/97, as all the petitions are outcome of one and the same F.I.R. No,89, dated 6-5-1980, registered at Police Station D.I. Khan Cantt., D.I. Khan. In all these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of criminal proceedings lodged against them pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan with powers of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial).
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners along with 18 others are involved in a case under section 409/420/468/471/109, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,89, dated 6-5-1980 at Police Station D.I.
Khan Cantt. i,e, about 18 years ago. The accused were released on bail by the trial Court on different occasions and the complete challan was put in Court on 20-10-1984 i,e, after 4-1/2 years of registration of the case. During the pendency of trial, Bashir Ahmad, one of the accused, had moved an application for his acquittal under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Which was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that only I.O. a material prosecution witness is left to be examined and after his deposition the said application could be decided. This order was assailed in Criminal Revision No,47 of 1991 which was rejected on 20-5-1992 with the direction to the Trial Court to examine the remaining prosecution witnesses and conclude the trial within a month positively or in alternative to decide the aforesaid application.
3. The record reveals that the directions of this Court were not complied with by the trial Court.
Resultantly, the said Bashir Ahmad alongwith Gulzar Muhammad, Niaz Muhammad Khan and Major Muhammad Sattar moved another application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 28-10-1993, Criminal Revision No,103/93, Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.158/94, 159/94 and 160/94 were preferred before this Court which were heard by the then Chief Justice of this Court, and in the conclusion vide his elaborate judgments delivered in the above-referred petitions on 18-5-1994 and 19-2-1997, respectively, accepted the petitions and proceedings against the accused/petitioners, referred to above, were quashed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Once again a direction was issued that the trial against the remaining accused be concluded as early as possible.
4: I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also gone through the record of the case with their valuable assistance.
5. It is stated at the 'Bar that out of 18 accused, five of them namely Mir Aqleem Khan, Allah Nawaz, Ayub Khan, Salahuddin and Mir Sahib Khan died in the prolonged proceedings. Seven of them, namely, Major (R) Sattar, Shafiullah, Mir Afsar Khattak, Bashir, Gul Hassan Shah, Said Badshah and Latif have since been retired during trial. The proceedings against Bashir Ahmad, Mubashir Ahmad and Sattar Khan, Gulzar Muhammad Khan have been quashed by this Court vide separate orders placed on file.
5-A. The record reveals that during the last 14 years since the commencement of trial only a few prosecution witnesses could be examined out of 63 witnesses mentioned in complete challan although most of the witnesses are Government servants and for the last 14 years the petitioners are regularly attending the Trial Court and no fault of such a delay could be attributed to the petitioners.
6. The learned State Counsel has conceded at the Bar, and rightly so, that the Trial Court could not conclude the trial in a long span of 14 years, no fault could be attributed to the petitioners. That the petitioners have already gone through mental and financial torture and agony which, by itself, is sufficient punishment for them and that no useful purpose will be served if the criminal proceedings against them is allowed to continue as there is no likelihood of its conclusion in near future.
7. Admittedly, inordinate delay of 14 years in conclusion of the trial which could not be attributed to the petitioners, is sufficient punishment for the petitioners. It is pity to note that uptil now it has not been ascertained as to what role the petitioners have played in the commission of offence. In identical circumstances in a case reported in PLD 1986 Quetta 103, it was observed as under:-- "However, we are really not inclined to remand the case for trial in the circumstances, when the case relates to incident of 1964, presented for trial on 8-12-1968 before the Court but on account of legal technicalities regarding the forum of its trial it has not been concluded in a long span of period of 14 years for no fault of theirs. The respondents have already gone through ordeal of mental as well as financial torture and agony, which by itself is sufficient punishment of them. In that case to meet the ends of justice we would like to invoke our inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And quash the proceedings against them and set them at liberty."
7-A. If further chance is given to the prosecution, I am of the firm view, that the case will linger on indefinitely with no fruitful result because from the material and evidence available on record no case could successfully be made out by the prosecution against the petitioners. In view of this slackness rather failure on the part of the prosecution to substantiate its case against the petitioners, this Court had already quashed the pending criminal proceedings against some of the accused involved in the case, as mentioned earlier.
8. Keeping in view the legal and factual position as well as the principle of consistency, I am constrained to accept the instant petitions by invoking my inherent jurisdiction under section 561- A, Cr.P.C. And quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial)/Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan under F.I.R. No,89, dated 5-6-1980, Police Station D.I. Khan Cantt., D.I. Khan.
' Consequently, all the petitions are accepted.