ڈسٹرکٹ ہیڈکوارٹر یا تحصیل میں سیشن ٹرائل کی سماعت کے حوالے سے انتہائی معلوماتی فیصلہ

 2024 MLD 1015

According to the instructions, sessions cases (excluding Hadood cases) should normally be tried at the District Headquarters. Nonetheless, when the accused appears before the Magistrate for the purpose of section 190 Cr.P.C., he should give him the choice of a trial at the subdivision. If there are multiple accused and they all do not consent to the trial at the sub-division, the Sessions Judge shall decide the place of trial at his discretion.

In the present case, on 12.10.2022, the police produced the Petitioner before the Magistrate in custody while Zahid Hussain appeared on his own because he was on bail. The Magistrate observed that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session and mechanically forwarded it to the Sessions Judge, Narowal, for “appropriate orders”. As per Letter No. 7886/RHC/MIT dated 25.5.1999, reproduced above, he was obligated to ask the accused whether they preferred that their trial be held at the District Headquarters or the Sub-Division when they appeared before him. He was required to document the fact that he had provided such an option to the accused. Nothing on the record indicates that he gave the Petitioner and his co-accused that choice.

The file was placed before the Sessions Judge, Narowal, on 17.10.2022. However, it does not appear from the record that the Petitioner or his co-accused attended his court. He unilaterally entrusted the case to Mr Asif Bashir, Additional Sessions Judge, Shakargarh, who fixed 20.10.2022 as the hearing date before him. On the said date, Mr Asif was on leave. The Duty Judge took up the case and issued a summons to Zahid and Irfan. The Petitioner was produced before him in custody. The Duty Judge also did not inquire whether he wanted the trial to be held at the District Headquarters or the Sub-Division.

Letter No. 7886/RHC/MIT dated 25.5.1999 gives the accused a valuable right to choose the place of trial which cannot be denied to him. If the complainant party has any issue, it has a legal remedy under section 526 Cr.P.C.

Since Respondents No.3 and 4 have not contested this petition, the Petitioner’s request must be granted. Accordingly, the case titled “The State v. Fauji Waqar etc.” is withdrawn from Mr Asif Bashir and transferred to the Sessions Judge, Narowal.

Respondent No.2 prays that the transferee court may be directed to decide the case as soon as possible. The Deputy Prosecutor General has no objection. Therefore, the Sessions Judge, Narowal, is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously and ensure its conclusion within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Crl. Misc. No.76558/T/2022

Muhammad Waqar alias Fauji Vs. The State etc.