LAHORE, Jan 29: The federal government has included on the agenda for the National Assembly business for the next session, the Law Reforms Bill for enactment after the legislature received the proposed law from its standing committee, which has introduced certain changes in the proposed law in the whetting process.
The bill, moved by Federal Minister for Law and Justice and Human Rights Wasi Zafar in 2006, seeks to amend as many as six laws for reforming them with the purpose of expeditious disposal of criminal and civil disputes by courts and bringing them in conformity with the modern day legal and judicial requirements.
The bill proposes changes in the Pakistan Penal Code of 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898, Specific Relief Act of 1877, Powers of Attorney Act of 1882, General Clauses Act of 1897, Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 and Registration Act of 1908.
Mr Zafar said the bill was included on the agenda of the National Assembly’s previous session but it could not be debated upon because other important issues were taken up ahead of the bill. The government, he said, has again placed the law for the next NA session and will hopefully be debated and voted upon. The law remained under the study of the NA Standing Committee on Law, Justice and Human Rights for about six months and was sent back to the assembly secretariat about one month ago.
The minister said the Pakistan Penal Code was proposed to be amended in the light of the Police Order, which held police accountable for their acts to officials and society. The Code of Civil Procedure was sought to be changed primarily to introduce alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which of late had become a pragmatic course of judicial dispensation around the world. The ADR regime, he said, has proved a success in resolving commercial and other disputes of civil nature expeditiously by encouraging out-of-court settlements through conciliation and mediation, which was now a global judicial practice without involving parties to the dispute to prolonged proceedings in courts. The government now wanted to put the regime in practice in Pakistan with the objective of lessening burden on courts and resolving civil disputes speedily with the involvement of a third party.
He said the CrPC was also being amended with the same purpose. Certain laws relating to criminal justice were being amended to also provide an alternative dispute resolution in criminal cases, including murder, theft, forgery and some other fields. He was of the view that the introduction of the ADR regime in the criminal justice field was in practice in many countries where the new option had worked with success.
CRIMINAL: The bill proposes to amend section 167 of the PPC as to enhance punishment for and dishonest investigation with malafide intention to three years to the investigating police official. It also seeks to change section 344 PPC in a way as to punish a police official for seven years in prison if he or she is found guilty of placing a citizen under wrongful confinement in a police station or elsewhere. It also proposes to raise the period of imprisonment from three to five years for theft, seven years in prison for cattle lifting and 10 years for the offence of deceit, fraud and forgery under section 420 PPC.
Similarly, the offences committed in relation to immovable property will involve an imprisonment of 10 years instead of seven years as provided under section 468 PPC.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: The hallmark of the bill is the separation of criminal and civil businesses with a view to ensuring speedy justice, enhancing efficiency and creating judicial specialisation among the courts of magistrates subordinate to the sessions judge. It seeks to separate the two judicial wings in a way that magistrates dispensing criminal justice shall not be assigned with the civil job. The police will be required to inform a person arrested for a criminal offence, the reasons for his or her arrest within 24 hours and no person shall be detained without being informed about the charges. The police will also be required to inform the detainee’s family about the charges.
Similarly, the change proposes criminal courts shall proceed in the case on a day-to-day basis until evidence is complete. An adjournment in the proceedings will not be allowed except in the case if that a court finds sufficient reasons for the adjournment. In such a case the reason for deferring the case to another date shall be recorded by the court.
Another important feature of the proposed amendment to the CrPC is that the court shall encourage and facilitate the parties to arrive at a settlement in compoundable offences by way of the alternative dispute resolution through mediation and conciliation with the consent of the parties.
Section 374 is being proposed to be amended with the purpose that a convict in a murder case shall not be treated as a condemned prisoner in the jail till a court confirms his or her sentence. In such a case the convict shall not be shifted to the death cell. Such a convict may be detained in a ‘high-security’ section to be allocated in prisons for ‘dangerous’ inmates.
The prison department will be under an obligation to earmark high-security areas within the jail premises.
The law also proposes to improve legal facilities for women who are involved in offences which carry an imprisonment of less tan 10 years. Such women, according to the proposed amendment, shall not be confined to jails and released on bail. Women involved in offences relating to narcotics smuggling and trafficking, terrorism, corruption and other crimes carrying death penalty or imprisonment for life, shall not be entitled to bail.
CIVIL: The most prominent feature of the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure is that it proposes that courts may resort to the alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial matters. It bars an aggrieved person to initiate legal proceedings against a federal or provincial government officer before serving upon him or her a one-month legal notice about the grievance. The officer concerned shall examine the notice and inform the plaintiff within one month if the grievance is genuine. If the reply to the notice does not satisfy the plaintiff, he or she will be required to enter into negotiation with the officer for removal of the difficulty through mediation or conciliation. This process shall have to be completed in a period of three months from the notice. For this the officer shall appoint a committee for the redressal of the grievance. If the dispute is not resolved through such means, the plaintiff will have a right to go to the court.
The court shall, at the initial stage, also prefer the alternative dispute resolution seeking the parties to resolve differences in commercial or civil dispute. The parties may subsequently resort to mediation or conciliation before legal proceedings are initiated.
The court will then appoint a mediator or conciliator, preferably a retired judge of a superior or subordinate court or a lawyer for the purpose. The court may also appoint a technocrat if the issue involved demanded so.
The ADR shall try to resolve the dispute in 60 days, which period may be extended by another one month upon a court order. In case the dispute is resolved or remains to be decided, the court shall be informed in writing accordingly. The bill also proposes that the Qanoon-i-Shahadat of 1984 shall not apply to the proceedings of mediation or conciliation. If the dispute is resolved or otherwise, the trial court shall make a pronouncement.
The law also proposes that the suits will be heard in two stages. In the first stage, an administrative civil judge will examine the suit to settle the issue. This process will take four months.
In the second stage, the administrative civil judge will refer the case to the trial court, which shall adjudicate the suit in not later than six months. For this, each party to the dispute shall complete evidence in seven days, according to the proposed law.