- S. 9(1)(3(c)--
اپیل کنندہ ٹرائل کورٹ کے سامنے پیش نہیں ہوا، اسے مفرور مجرم قرار دیا گیا--یہ ایک عمومی اصول ہے کہ نوٹس، سمن، ضمانتی وارنٹ، غیر ضمانتی وارنٹ اور اعلان کے ذریعے عمل جاری کرنے کا بنیادی اور اہم مقصد ملزم کو عدالت میں لانا ہے تاکہ وہ قانونی کارروائی کا سامنا کر سکے--جب اپیل کنندہ کی جانب سے 09.10.2024 کے حکم کی واپسی کے لیے درخواست دائر کی گئی اور اگر وہ (اپیل کنندہ) خود عدالت کے سامنے پیش ہوا تو یہ عدالت کے لیے مناسب تھا کہ یا تو اسے حراست میں لے لے کیونکہ اس کا ضمانتی بانڈ پہلے ہی 09.10.2024 کے حکم کے ذریعے ضبط ہو چکا تھا یا پھر اگر واپسی کے لیے وجوہات معقول، متعلقہ اور قابل قبول تھیں تو مذکورہ حکم 09.10.2024 کو واپس لے لے اور بلا شبہ 09.10.2024 کا حکم کوئی فیصلہ نہیں بلکہ ایک عارضی حکم ہے؛ مزید یہ کہ یہ بھی ذکر کرنا ضروری ہے کہ عدالت کی طرف سے جاری کردہ وارنٹ کو بھی وہی عدالت منسوخ کر سکتی ہے جو اسے جاری کرتی ہے اور دفعہ 75، فوجداری ضابطہ--یہ کہنا بے جا نہیں ہوگا کہ ملزم کی "گرفتاری کے وارنٹ" یا "اعلان" کے جاری کرنے کے حوالے سے حکم کی واپسی کی درخواست بغیر ملزم کے عدالت میں پیش ہونے کے قابل قبول/قابل عمل نہیں ہے--لہذا، اپیل کنندہ کے وکیل، ڈپٹی پراسیکیوٹر جنرل اور انصاف کی محفوظ انتظامیہ کی ہم آہنگی کے ساتھ، مذکورہ حکم 14.10.2024 جو ٹرائل کورٹ نے جاری کیا تھا، کو یہاں منسوخ کیا جاتا ہے، معاملہ ٹرائل کورٹ کو واپس بھیجا جاتا ہے جہاں اپیل کنندہ کی جانب سے دائر کردہ مذکورہ درخواست 09.10.2024 کے حکم کی واپسی کے لیے زیر التوا سمجھی جائے گی اور اگر اپیل کنندہ 11.11.2024 کو ٹرائل کورٹ میں پیش ہوتا ہے تو مذکورہ درخواست کا فیصلہ نئے حکم کے ذریعے تمام متعلقہ افراد کی سماعت کے بعد اور سختی سے قانون کے مطابق کیا جائے گا--تاہم، اگر اپیل کنندہ 11.11.2024 کو ٹرائل کورٹ میں پیش نہیں ہوتا تو اس کی مذکورہ درخواست پر کارروائی نہیں کی جائے گی--اپیل نمٹا دی گئی۔
[P. 25] A & B
PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 22 (DB)
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Farooq Haider and Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, JJ.
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN--Appellant
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 69556 of 2024, decided on 6.11.2024.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)--
----S. 9(1)(3(c)--Appellant did not appeared before trial Court, declared proclaimed offender--It is trite law that basic and prime purpose of issuance of process through notice, summons, bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants as well as proclamation is to bring accused in Court for facing proceedings of case in accordance with law--When application for re-calling of order dated 09.10.2024 was filed on behalf of appellant and if he (appellant) himself appeared/surrendered before Court then it was appropriate for Court either to take him into custody as his surety bond was already forfeited vide order dated 09.10.2024 or to recall aforementioned order dated 09.10.2024 if reasons were cogent, relevant and plausible for recalling same and undoubtedly order dated 09.10.2024 is not judgment rather an interim order; furthermore, it is also relevant to mention here that even warrant issued by Court can be cancelled by Court which issued it and Section 75, Cr.P.C.--It goes without saying that application for recalling of order qua issuance of “warrant of arrest” or “proclamation” of accused is neither entertainable/maintainable nor proceedable without surrender of accused in Court--Therefore, with concurrence of counsel for appellant, Deputy Prosecutor General and for safe administration of justice, afore-mentioned order dated 14.10.2024 passed by trial Court is hereby set-aside, matter is remanded to trial Court where aforementioned application filed by appellant for re-calling of order dated 09.10.2024 will be deemed as pending and if appellant will surrender before trial Court on 11.11.2024 then said application would be decided through fresh order after hearing all concerned and strictly in accordance with law--However, if appellant will not surrender before trial Court on 11.11.2024 then his application (mentioned above) would be not proceedable--Appeal disposed of.
[P. 25] A & B
Mr. Mehram Ali Bali, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Haroon Rasheed, Deputy Prosecutor General for State (on Court’s call).
Date of hearing: 6.11.2024.
Order
Through this appeal, Muhammad Hussain (petitioner) has impugned the vires of orders dated 09.10.2024 as well as 14.10.2024 passed by trial Court.
2. Brief however necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are that Muhammad Hussain (present appellant) is facing trial as accused in the case arising out of F.I.R. No. 386/2023 dated 24.02.2023 registered under Section 9(1)3(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Millat Town, Faisalabad before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad/trial Court; appellant did not appear before the trial Court on 09.10.2024, he was declared as proclaimed offender, his surety bond was forfeited and Station House Officer was directed to enter name of the accused in the register of proclaimed offenders; relevant portion of said order is hereby reproduced:
“Accused has absented himself from the Court deliberately. It is pertinent to mention here that it is well in knowledge of the accused that his case is pending adjudication in the Court and despite having knowledge he has not appeared in Court which shows his irrelevant conduct towards Court proceedings. Nor he himself nor on behalf of the accused has brought in knowledge to the Court regarding reasons of his absence. His conduct does not entitle any leniency. It is primary duty of the accused to appear before the Court on each and every date. Therefore, reliance is place on PLD 1978 S.C, today I dispense proclamation under Section 87, Cr.P.C. and declare him as proclaimed offender. His surety bound is forfeited and separate proceedings are prepared under Section 514, Cr.P.C. against surety. S.H.O concerned is directed to enter the name of accused in the register of proclamation offender.
Thereafter present appellant filed application for recalling of said order dated 09.10.2024 and marking his attendance before trial Court (copy of said application is available at pages No. 20-21 of instant appeal) which was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2024 passed by trial Court (copy of said order is available at page No. 23 of this appeal) and relevant portion of the same is hereby reproduced:
“Perusal of record reveals that accused was facing trial before this Court in case F.I.R No. 386 dated 24.02.2023 under Section 9(i)3C CNSA 1997 registered at Police Station Millat Town, Faisalabad, who absented himself from the Court resulting into carrying out the proceedings under Section 87, Cr.P.C. against him and he was declared proclaimed offender on 09.10.2024. Legality and propriety of such an order can be looked into by Hon’ble High Court being revisable under Section 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. In view of above, application stands dismissed.”
3. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy Prosecutor General (on Court’s call) submit in unison that impugned order dated 14.10.2024 is not in accordance with law and it would be appropriate to set-aside the same and refer matter back to the trial Court for re-deciding said application through fresh order.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going through the available record appended with this appeal it has been noticed that vide order dated 09.10.2024 (mentioned above), appellant has been declared proclaimed offender and his surety bond has been forfeited. It is trite law that basic and prime purpose of issuance of process through notice, summons, bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants as well as proclamation is to bring the accused in the Court for facing the proceedings of the case in accordance with law. When application for re-calling of order dated 09.10.2024 was filed on behalf of appellant and if he (appellant) himself appeared/surrendered before the Court then it was appropriate for the Court either to take him into custody as his surety bond was already forfeited vide order dated 09.10.2024 or to recall aforementioned order dated 09.10.2024 if reasons were cogent, relevant and plausible for recalling the same and undoubtedly order dated 09.10.2024 is not the judgment rather an interim order; furthermore, it is also relevant to mention here that even warrant issued by the Court can be cancelled by the Court which issued it and Section 75, Cr.P.C. is hereby reproduced for ready reference in this regard:
“75. Form of warrant of arrest. (1) Every warrant of arrest issued by a Court under this Code shall be in writing, signed by the presiding officer, or in the case of a Bench of Magistrates, by any member of such Bench; and shall bear the seal of the Court.
(2) Continuance of warrant of arrest. Every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed.”
It goes without saying that application for recalling of order qua issuance of “warrant of arrest” or “proclamation” of accused is neither entertainable/maintainable nor proceedable without surrender of the accused in the Court. Therefore, with the concurrence of learned counsel for the appellant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and for the safe administration of justice, afore-mentioned order dated 14.10.2024 passed by trial Court is hereby set-aside, matter is remanded to the trial Court where aforementioned application filed by the appellant for re-calling of order dated 09.10.2024 will be deemed as pending and if appellant will surrender before trial Court on 11.11.2024 then said application would be decided through fresh order after hearing all concerned and strictly in accordance with law. However, if appellant will not surrender before trial Court on 11.11.2024 then his application (mentioned above) would be not proceedable (as discussed above) and law will take its own course in
furtherance of order dated 09.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad/trial Court. With this observation, this appeal stands disposed of.
(A.A.K.) Appeal disposed of
0 Comments