Law point in plea against sessions judge's decision
By Mahmood Zaman
LAHORE, Dec 8: The Federal Shariat Court is examining a law point as to what is the stage of a case that allows the filing of an application for acquittal under the Criminal Procedure Code.
The law point has been raised in a revision petition filed by Amanulah Khan and Ms Naureen Dar of Lahore, who felt aggrieved by the decision of a local additional sessions judge who dismissed their application for acquittal when the case against them was at the concluding stage.
Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court Justice Ejaz Yousuf admitted the revision petition for regular hearing and issued notices to the Punjab government.
The petitioners were charged with attempt to murder (section 324 PPC) and adultery (the Hudood Ordinance) and were facing trial with a local additional sessions judge, who had examined nine of 10 witnesses. The accused filed an application under 465-K of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking their acquittal in the case.
The ADSJ dismissed their application on Oct 6 this year holding that although such an application could be filed at any stage of the case even before charges were framed, he had found no legal ingredients of section 265-K of the CrPC in the application.
The decision also said that no abuse of the court process was there and the argument of the application could be taken care of in the final decision. The revision petition before the Federal Shariat Court submitted that the ADSJ's decision was unlawful because it did not take into consideration the merit of the case.
It submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case, witnesses had given conflicting statements about the incident and there was probability that they would be convicted. The petitioners also submitted that the ADSJ had not recorded reason for dismissing their application.
Assistant advocate-general Raja Abdur Rehman submitted that the case did not attract section 265-K of the CrPC which provided a move for acquittal and not conviction. The trial court under a legal obligation to record reasons only in case of acquittal and not in the case of dismissing such an application.
The reason under the law, which also was the mindset of the legislature, was that the trial court was obliged to record reason for acquittal not to prejudice the case in the final decision.
He submitted that section 265-K of the CrPC stipulated and it was also provided by 1993 SCMR 523, that an application for acquittal could be submitted at any stage of the case.
However, the AAG also cited two later Supreme Court decisions -- PLD 1999 SC 1063 and PLD 201 SC 7 -- to substantiate his point that when the prosecution evidence was completed and only the statement of the accused remained to be recorded, the plea for acquittal might not be accepted and the trial courts could formulate their own conclusions in view of arguments from both the sides in passing the final judgment. He submitted that later judgments of the apex court would obviously hold ground.
