IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.---Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court as well as Mr. M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on Record for the petitioner are absent.
2. We have emphasised time and again that backlog and delays in quick dispensation of justice is a serious threat to the existing judicial system of Pakistan. The Judges cannot perform their duty without support and cooperation of the Bar. In criminal cases the responsibility of a lawyer stands on a higher pedestal than in civil matters. Concerted efforts of the Bench and the Bar are required for the dispensation of justice with efficiency and speed through a fair trial. A time has come when we have to take stern measures in order to preserve the system of administration of justice to discourage protracted trials, so as to improve access to justice and enable the accused to have a fair trial, so that those found guilty are suitably punished and innocent people are set at liberty. We should follow a middle course between the two well-known maxims that: "Justice delayed is justice denied" and "Justice rushed is justice crushed". Simultaneously, it is the duty of the Court and all concerned to protect the rights of the victims, otherwise their honour, property and life would be in serious jeopardy and in constant fear of victimization. This being so it would not advance the cause of justice to grant adjournments frequently in criminal cases, in particular due to absence of the learned counsel. Under the general instructions issued by this Court the cases fixed for hearing before the Court as published in the Final Cause List, are to be heard and disposed of accordingly and no adjournment on any ground is contemplated. This note prominently appears on the Supreme Court Final Cause Lists. It is unfortunate that neither Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme. Court nor Mr. M.A. Zaidi, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner are present in Court to argue the case arising out of the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby the learned trial Judge, Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities acquitted the private respondents of the charge on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court through the impugned judgment also upheld the judgment of acquittal in this double murder case.
3. Ordinarily, we would have disposed of this petition for non-prosecution but that would have the effect of seriously jeopardizing the victim's rights or the rights of the victim's heirs for no fault of theirs, inasmuch as, in the present case the heirs of the deceased have engaged a learned counsel of this Court as well as an Advocate-on-Record for pursuing the case but none have appeared to discharge their duty to their client as well as the Court. Such a state of affairs is indeed deplorable.
Assuming that there was a genuine case for the non-appearance of the learned counsel, the minimum courtesy required submission of an application for adjournment with reasons in that regard during the last week. Unfortunately, the learned counsel and the Advocate-on-Record had not taken pains in informing the Court.
4. Mr. Tariq Mehmood claiming to he the real brother of petitioner Shoaib Mehmood, present in Court, seeks adjournment on behalf of the petitioner and states that respondent Iftikhar-ul-Haq is alive and the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment, dated 19-12-2000 wrongly observed that Iftikhar-ul-Haq also died alongwith his co-accused Gulzar Abbasi during the pendency of appeal before the High Court. Under the Supreme Court Rules, he has no locus standi to appear before this Court without proper authorization. Be that as it may, we have ourselves gone through the available material on record. We find that the judgment of the trial Court has not been appended to the present petition.
5. In order to ascertain true facts, let notice be issued to the Advocate-General, Punjab as well as the private respondents.
6. Notice be also issued to Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court as well as to Mr. M.A. Zaidi, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not taken against them for their non-appearance in Court?
7. To come up for hearing on 19th September, 2001.