ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has conceded that inordinate and unreasonable delay in the conclusion of trial is a challenge that affects the administration of criminal justice system and noted it is incumbent upon investigating officers and lawyers to avoid unnecessary and unjustified delays to ensure timely justice.

“Such delay is antithetic to the foundational principles of liberty, fair trial and due process,” Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail wrote in a judgement against an appeal in an abduction case on Friday.

Justice Mandokhail, who headed a three-judge SC bench that also comprised Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, dismissed the appeal of Mehboob Hassan against the acquittal of respondents Kamran and Mohammad Boota by the Bahawalpur bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) in the kidnapping case.

The case at hand revolves around an FIR lodged by the petitioner in Bahawalnagar on July 13, 2006 for the abduction of his nephew, Mohammad Farrukh Iqbal. Some two years later, the respondents Kamran and Muhammad Boota were arrested in connection with some other case. During the interrogation, however, they allegedly confessed their involvement in the abduction as well. On their disclosure, according to the prosecution, police allegedly seized Rs100,000 and Rs50,000 in cash from their houses. The trial court convicted them of kidnapping in 2011, but the LHC four years later acquitted them of the charges.

Dismisses appeal against acquittal of respondents in kidnap case

Subsequently, Mehboob Hassan challenged the LHC decision of their acquittal before the SC.

Justice Mandokhail dismissed his appeal, directing him to return the confiscated money to the respondents. He emphasised that it was the primary duty of the investigating agencies and every judge to take into account the fundamental rights of persons whose cases were brought before them.

The present case is a classic example, he regretted, where the respondents were arrested in 2008, convicted by the trial court on Jan 12, 2011 and remained in custody until Jan 13, 2015 when they were finally acquitted.

Though the respondents got acquittal, they did not get justice in time, Justice Mandokhail deplored, adding nobody could justify their detention for seven long years during which they were deprived of their constitutional right of liberty and free movement.

Besides incurring expenditure, they faced the agony and misery of a prolonged trial and unreasonable delay in conclusion of appeal, the judge noted, regretting that they remained uncompensated, because there was no mechanism for doing so.

When the legal machinery fails to deliver justice within a reasonable time, it not only violates the constitutional mandate but leads to frustration, according to the verdict. Thus, it added, an inexpensive and timely justice is a requirement of the constitution, which must be observed by all stakeholders in all circumstances without any excuse.

Justice Mandokhail admitted that prosecuting agencies and courts were overburdened with cases as a result of population explosion and lack of basic facilities, necessary for early dispensation of justice.

Yet they were also under constitutional obligations to conduct and conclude fair investigation and fair trial within a stipulated period to the possible extent or in a reasonable period where there was no time limit provided by the law for doing so, he said.

Steps to avoid delays

Within the prevailing system, it was difficult to achieve the desired results, the SC bench conceded, but offered some suggestions to bring improvement such as proper management to streamline investigation and judicial proceedings.

It noted that it was incumbent upon investigating officers and lawyers to follow the law and cooperate with courts to avoid unnecessary and unjustified delays in early disposal of cases. Cooperation between investigating agencies, prosecutors and complainants was also essential to ensure timely and fair conclusion of cases, the verdict added.

To address deficiencies in prosecution’s cases and avoid unreasonable delays in conclusion of criminal trials and appeals, it is an obligation of the state under Article 37(d) to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice, the judgement stated. For this, vacancies of judicial officers across the country must be filled on merit, without further delay; the number of judges, wherever required, must be increased, the judgement emphasised.

It also suggested an upgrade of the investigation mechanism, introduction of modern techniques, equipment, devices and tools, regular training for investigating officials, steps to ensure independence of investigating agencies and judiciary, provision of basic facilities to investigating agencies and courts, safety and protection of judicial officers, investigating officials and witnesses.

The SC judgement also wanted that the government curb the trend of registration of false and frivolous cases and ensure that those behind frivolous litigation are not let off scot-free for such acts. For this, the government and the parliament/ assemblies may consider required legislation. Until such a policy was devised, courts must exercise their powers to ensure dispensation of justice and discourage frivolous and malicious litigation, it added.

Published in Dawn, February 3rd, 2024