Under subsection (3) of S.366, Cr.P.C., a judgment delivered by a court

Amongst other principles, this division bench verdict lays down principles as to pronouncement of judgment in a criminal trial. It was held that personal attendance of accused was necessary for the pronouncement of the judgment in Criminal Trial, except where his personal attendance during the trial had been dispensed with or where the judgment was of acquittal, or was of fine only, but under subsection (3) of S.366, Cr.P.C., a judgment delivered by a court was not to be deemed to be invalid, merely because of the reason that any party, or his pleader was absent on the date of pronouncement of the judgment, or for any defect in the service of notice on the parties regarding the date and place of pronouncement of the judgment. Application of provisions under S.537, Cr.P.C. had been reaffirmed in S.366(4), Cr.P.C. with the result that the pronouncement of the judgment in a criminal trial in the absence of any party was not at all an illegality; nor same would render any such judgment as invalid. No such provision existed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as that contained in S.366, Cr.P.C. for the announcement of judgment in criminal appeal, meaning thereby that the intention of the Legislature was that the judgment in appeal could be pronounced in the absence of the appellant. Presence of party or its availability or its being within the reach of the court at the time of decision of his appeal was not a legal requirement. Court was supposed to do justice after appraisal of evidence; and appellant could not be punished simply for the reason that he had absconded after filing his appeal before the Appellate Court. Appeal filed by accused who had absconded after filing his appeal, could competently be decided on merits by Appellate Court, even in his absence

PLD 2015 Lahore 1