PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has declared that the right to fair trial and due process is applicable to all statutes and proceedings, even in cases where the law is silent, including summary trials.

Justice Mohammad Naeem Anwar of a single-member bench rejected the plea of the provincial government against a sessions judge’s verdict to set aside the order of a special magistrate (assistant commissioner) to convict and fine a sugar hoarder.

On July 12, 2023, the sessions judge accepted the appeal of convict Malik Saddam Jan and ordered to refund Rs200,000 received from him as fine for hoarding huge quantities of sugar in his godown.

Discussing the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Covid-19 (Prevention of Hoarding) Act, 2020, the bench declared that likewise, Article 10-A of the Constitution guaranteed the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process and it applied to every statute and proceeding, even where the law was silent.

“Due process requires that a person must receive notice of proceedings, be given a reasonable opportunity to defend, be tried by an impartial and honest forum, and that such forum must be of competent jurisdiction,” it observed in a seven-page detailed order.

Rejects govt plea against sessions judge’s order in summary trial case

The court declared that the doctrine of due process imposed a duty on courts, tribunals and executive authorities to follow lawful procedure, afford parties a fair chance to present their case, examine witnesses and produce evidence.

It added that even where procedural law is silent, the minimum standards of fairness under Article 10-A must be observed, failing which the entire proceedings became unsustainable.

The bench held that the sessions judge committed no illegality or jurisdictional error in entertaining and allowing the appeal and ordering refund of the fine.

An assistant advocate general, representing the government, contended that the respondent (Malik Saddam) was caught red-handed and on the basis of his confession he was fined Rs 200,000 by the assistant commissioner, Shah Alam tehsil, acting as special magistrate on Apr 19, 2023, under the Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 read with the Covid-19 (Prevention of Hoarding) Act.

He contended that the sessions judge was expressly barred under the law to exercise any jurisdiction in the matter.

The respondent’s counsel, Shah Hussain Nasapa, argued that the entire proceedings conducted by the AC, from inception to conclusion, were not in accordance with the law

The bench observed that the order of the special magistrate/ AC was appealable as the fine exceeded the limits prescribed under section 14-A of the CrPC.

It declared that in in appealable summary cases, section 264 CrPC mandatorily required recording of substance of the substance of evidence and a reasoned judgment.

“In the instant case, perusal of the record reveals that the Petitioner-State, along with the revision petition, has only annexed the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and has failed to place on record the proceedings of the learned Special Magistrate, including the complaint, order of conviction, or any proper record of the summary trial,” it declared.

The court added that the records of both appellate and trial courts were called, but the records of the trial court were not made available despite repeated orders.

“The only document annexed with the petition and available before the court is the receipt of deposit of fine, which is a printed proforma, filled in by hand. Neither any complaint allegedly filed by the public at large is available on the record, nor any statement of allegations, show cause notice, or record of trial proceedings, if any, even no formal order of conviction appears to have been passed by the learned Special Magistrate. In the printed form too, it is not clear as to whether the accused/petitioner was convicted and sentenced under the Act 1977 or Act, 2020,” it pointed out.

The court added that in those circumstances, a printed form regarding the deposit of fine, containing a bald endorsement such as “pleads guilty” or a vague statement, by no stretch of imagination satisfied the mandatory requirements of the law.

It declared that such an endorsement neither constituted a lawful confession nor could it be treated as a valid judicial order passed in accordance with the mandatory provisions of law, and as such, the entire proceedings stood vitiated.

Published in Dawn, January 3rd, 2026