' M.A. SHAHID SIDDUQUI, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Mian Muhammad Idrees and Haji Noor-ul-Islam petitioners, who are being tried alongwith eight others by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in case under sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered with Anti-Narcotics Force, Multan, vide F.I.R. No,9 of 2001, have challenged the legality of the order of the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, dated the 29th October, 2003, whereby the approval has been accorded of the holding of the trial of the accused inside the promises of New Central Jail, Multan.
2. The documents submitted by Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz Malik, Advocate, learned Special Prosecutor for A.N.F., Multan, indicate that on 6th October, 2003, Captain Shaukat Jawad Khan, Assistant Director, A.N.F. Multan, wrote a confidential letter to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, for making a Reference to the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, seeking permission to conduct the trial of the said case in jail. The Home Department, on the reference made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, through the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order argued that it is the right of the accused to be tried in open Court as envisaged under section 352, Cr.P.C. And the decision to take exception rests with the trial Court. In the instant case, it is argued that the decision has been taken by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, at the instance of Captain Shaukat Jawad Khan, Assistant Director, A.N.F. Multan, who had absolutely no concern with the trial.
4. The learned Special Prosecutor, ANF, while supporting the impugned order maintained that the accused belong to a gang of International drug traffickers and that there were credible information that they would manage their escape in collusion with some officials of Law Enforcing Agencies, as such, in order to avoid any untoward incident it was necessary that their. Trial should 'be held in the jail premises.
5. In order to appreciate the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the parties, section 352, Cr.P.C. May advantageously be reproduced as under:--- "The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed an open Court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them: ' Provided that the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular case, that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court."
6. A plain reading of the above provision of law shows that a .Criminal trial should always be held in an open Court where general pubic can have an easy access. However, in exceptional circumstances, the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may deny access to public in general or any particular person. A similar provision is contained in Volume III, Chapter 1, Part A(3) in the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which gives discretion to the Presiding Officer alone to hold the trial in jail and for this purpose, the trial Court has to make a reference to obtain the sanction of the Government.
7. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the trial Court has not taken any decision in this regard and the Home Department, Government of Punjab, has accorded approval on a reference made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan who was not seized of the matter. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we accept this writ petition and set aside the impugned order. #EndJudgment
' M.A. SHAHID SIDDUQUI, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Mian Muhammad Idrees and Haji Noor-ul-Islam petitioners, who are being tried alongwith eight others by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in case under sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered with Anti-Narcotics Force, Multan, vide F.I.R. No,9 of 2001, have challenged the legality of the order of the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, dated the 29th October, 2003, whereby the approval has been accorded of the holding of the trial of the accused inside the promises of New Central Jail, Multan.
2. The documents submitted by Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz Malik, Advocate, learned Special Prosecutor for A.N.F., Multan, indicate that on 6th October, 2003, Captain Shaukat Jawad Khan, Assistant Director, A.N.F. Multan, wrote a confidential letter to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, for making a Reference to the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, seeking permission to conduct the trial of the said case in jail. The Home Department, on the reference made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, through the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order argued that it is the right of the accused to be tried in open Court as envisaged under section 352, Cr.P.C. And the decision to take exception rests with the trial Court. In the instant case, it is argued that the decision has been taken by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, at the instance of Captain Shaukat Jawad Khan, Assistant Director, A.N.F. Multan, who had absolutely no concern with the trial.
4. The learned Special Prosecutor, ANF, while supporting the impugned order maintained that the accused belong to a gang of International drug traffickers and that there were credible information that they would manage their escape in collusion with some officials of Law Enforcing Agencies, as such, in order to avoid any untoward incident it was necessary that their. Trial should 'be held in the jail premises.
5. In order to appreciate the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the parties, section 352, Cr.P.C. May advantageously be reproduced as under:--- "The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed an open Court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them: ' Provided that the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular case, that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court."
6. A plain reading of the above provision of law shows that a .Criminal trial should always be held in an open Court where general pubic can have an easy access. However, in exceptional circumstances, the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may deny access to public in general or any particular person. A similar provision is contained in Volume III, Chapter 1, Part A(3) in the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which gives discretion to the Presiding Officer alone to hold the trial in jail and for this purpose, the trial Court has to make a reference to obtain the sanction of the Government.
7. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the trial Court has not taken any decision in this regard and the Home Department, Government of Punjab, has accorded approval on a reference made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan who was not seized of the matter. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we accept this writ petition and set aside the impugned order. #EndJudgment
' M.A. SHAHID SIDDUQUI, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Mian Muhammad Idrees and Haji Noor-ul-Islam petitioners, who are being tried alongwith eight others by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in case under sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered with Anti-Narcotics Force, Multan, vide F.I.R. No,9 of 2001, have challenged the legality of the order of the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, dated the 29th October, 2003, whereby the approval has been accorded of the holding of the trial of the accused inside the promises of New Central Jail, Multan.
2. The documents submitted by Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz Malik, Advocate, learned Special Prosecutor for A.N.F., Multan, indicate that on 6th October, 2003, Captain Shaukat Jawad Khan, Assistant Director, A.N.F. Multan, wrote a confidential letter to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, for making a Reference to the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, seeking permission to conduct the trial of the said case in jail. The Home Department, on the reference made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, through the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order argued that it is the right of the accused to be tried in open Court as envisaged under section 352, Cr.P.C. And the decision to take exception rests with the trial Court. In the instant case, it is argued that the decision has been taken by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, at the instance of Captain Shaukat Jawad Khan, Assistant Director, A.N.F. Multan, who had absolutely no concern with the trial.
4. The learned Special Prosecutor, ANF, while supporting the impugned order maintained that the accused belong to a gang of International drug traffickers and that there were credible information that they would manage their escape in collusion with some officials of Law Enforcing Agencies, as such, in order to avoid any untoward incident it was necessary that their. Trial should 'be held in the jail premises.
5. In order to appreciate the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the parties, section 352, Cr.P.C. May advantageously be reproduced as under:--- "The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed an open Court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them: ' Provided that the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular case, that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court."
6. A plain reading of the above provision of law shows that a .Criminal trial should always be held in an open Court where general pubic can have an easy access. However, in exceptional circumstances, the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may deny access to public in general or any particular person. A similar provision is contained in Volume III, Chapter 1, Part A(3) in the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which gives discretion to the Presiding Officer alone to hold the trial in jail and for this purpose, the trial Court has to make a reference to obtain the sanction of the Government.
7. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the trial Court has not taken any decision in this regard and the Home Department, Government of Punjab, has accorded approval on a reference made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan who was not seized of the matter. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we accept this writ petition and set aside the impugned order. #EndJudgment
' M.A. SHAHID SIDDUQUI, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Mian Muhammad Idrees and Haji Noor-ul-Islam petitioners, who are being tried alongwith eight others by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in case under sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered with Anti-Narcotics Force, Multan, vide F.I.R. No,9 of 2001, have challenged the legality of the order of the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, dated the 29th October, 2003, whereby the approval has been accorded of the holding of the trial of the accused inside the promises of New Central Jail, Multan.
2. The documents submitted by Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz Malik, Advocate, learned Special Prosecutor for A.N.F., Multan, indicate that on 6th October, 2003, Captain Shaukat Jawad Khan, Assistant Director, A.N.F. Multan, wrote a confidential letter to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, for making a Reference to the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, seeking permission to conduct the trial of the said case in jail. The Home Department, on the reference made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, through the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order argued that it is the right of the accused to be tried in open Court as envisaged under section 352, Cr.P.C. And the decision to take exception rests with the trial Court. In the instant case, it is argued that the decision has been taken by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, at the instance of Captain Shaukat Jawad Khan, Assistant Director, A.N.F. Multan, who had absolutely no concern with the trial.
4. The learned Special Prosecutor, ANF, while supporting the impugned order maintained that the accused belong to a gang of International drug traffickers and that there were credible information that they would manage their escape in collusion with some officials of Law Enforcing Agencies, as such, in order to avoid any untoward incident it was necessary that their. Trial should 'be held in the jail premises.
5. In order to appreciate the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the parties, section 352, Cr.P.C. May advantageously be reproduced as under:--- "The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed an open Court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them: ' Provided that the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular case, that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court."
6. A plain reading of the above provision of law shows that a .Criminal trial should always be held in an open Court where general pubic can have an easy access. However, in exceptional circumstances, the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may deny access to public in general or any particular person. A similar provision is contained in Volume III, Chapter 1, Part A(3) in the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which gives discretion to the Presiding Officer alone to hold the trial in jail and for this purpose, the trial Court has to make a reference to obtain the sanction of the Government.
7. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the trial Court has not taken any decision in this regard and the Home Department, Government of Punjab, has accorded approval on a reference made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan who was not seized of the matter. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we accept this writ petition and set aside the impugned order. #EndJudgment
' M.A. SHAHID SIDDUQUI, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Mian Muhammad Idrees and Haji Noor-ul-Islam petitioners, who are being tried alongwith eight others by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in case under sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered with Anti-Narcotics Force, Multan, vide F.I.R. No,9 of 2001, have challenged the legality of the order of the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, dated the 29th October, 2003, whereby the approval has been accorded of the holding of the trial of the accused inside the promises of New Central Jail, Multan.
2. The documents submitted by Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz Malik, Advocate, learned Special Prosecutor for A.N.F., Multan, indicate that on 6th October, 2003, Captain Shaukat Jawad Khan, Assistant Director, A.N.F. Multan, wrote a confidential letter to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, for making a Reference to the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, seeking permission to conduct the trial of the said case in jail. The Home Department, on the reference made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, through the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order argued that it is the right of the accused to be tried in open Court as envisaged under section 352, Cr.P.C. And the decision to take exception rests with the trial Court. In the instant case, it is argued that the decision has been taken by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, at the instance of Captain Shaukat Jawad Khan, Assistant Director, A.N.F. Multan, who had absolutely no concern with the trial.
4. The learned Special Prosecutor, ANF, while supporting the impugned order maintained that the accused belong to a gang of International drug traffickers and that there were credible information that they would manage their escape in collusion with some officials of Law Enforcing Agencies, as such, in order to avoid any untoward incident it was necessary that their. Trial should 'be held in the jail premises.
5. In order to appreciate the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the parties, section 352, Cr.P.C. May advantageously be reproduced as under:--- "The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed an open Court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them: ' Provided that the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular case, that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court."
6. A plain reading of the above provision of law shows that a .Criminal trial should always be held in an open Court where general pubic can have an easy access. However, in exceptional circumstances, the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may deny access to public in general or any particular person. A similar provision is contained in Volume III, Chapter 1, Part A(3) in the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which gives discretion to the Presiding Officer alone to hold the trial in jail and for this purpose, the trial Court has to make a reference to obtain the sanction of the Government.
7. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the trial Court has not taken any decision in this regard and the Home Department, Government of Punjab, has accorded approval on a reference made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan who was not seized of the matter. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we accept this writ petition and set aside the impugned order. #EndJudgment
' M.A. SHAHID SIDDUQUI, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Mian Muhammad Idrees and Haji Noor-ul-Islam petitioners, who are being tried alongwith eight others by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in case under sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered with Anti-Narcotics Force, Multan, vide F.I.R. No,9 of 2001, have challenged the legality of the order of the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, dated the 29th October, 2003, whereby the approval has been accorded of the holding of the trial of the accused inside the promises of New Central Jail, Multan.
2. The documents submitted by Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz Malik, Advocate, learned Special Prosecutor for A.N.F., Multan, indicate that on 6th October, 2003, Captain Shaukat Jawad Khan, Assistant Director, A.N.F. Multan, wrote a confidential letter to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, for making a Reference to the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, seeking permission to conduct the trial of the said case in jail. The Home Department, on the reference made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, through the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order argued that it is the right of the accused to be tried in open Court as envisaged under section 352, Cr.P.C. And the decision to take exception rests with the trial Court. In the instant case, it is argued that the decision has been taken by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan, at the instance of Captain Shaukat Jawad Khan, Assistant Director, A.N.F. Multan, who had absolutely no concern with the trial.
4. The learned Special Prosecutor, ANF, while supporting the impugned order maintained that the accused belong to a gang of International drug traffickers and that there were credible information that they would manage their escape in collusion with some officials of Law Enforcing Agencies, as such, in order to avoid any untoward incident it was necessary that their. Trial should 'be held in the jail premises.
5. In order to appreciate the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the parties, section 352, Cr.P.C. May advantageously be reproduced as under:--- "The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed an open Court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them: ' Provided that the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular case, that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court."
6. A plain reading of the above provision of law shows that a .Criminal trial should always be held in an open Court where general pubic can have an easy access. However, in exceptional circumstances, the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may deny access to public in general or any particular person. A similar provision is contained in Volume III, Chapter 1, Part A(3) in the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which gives discretion to the Presiding Officer alone to hold the trial in jail and for this purpose, the trial Court has to make a reference to obtain the sanction of the Government.
7. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the trial Court has not taken any decision in this regard and the Home Department, Government of Punjab, has accorded approval on a reference made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan who was not seized of the matter. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we accept this writ petition and set aside the impugned order. #EndJudgment