livelawpk.com - Failure to Deliver Justice

When the legal machinery fails to deliver justice within a reasonable time, it not only violates the constitutional mandate, but also leads to frustration --- SCP

Islamabad 07-02-2024: The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan laid down the Principles of Administration of Criminal Justice for the Courts, Law Enforcement Agencies and Prosecution. The Honourable Judge of Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail while hearing [Crl. Petition No. 235-L of 2015] observed that it is the basic duty of the state under Article 37(d) of the constitution to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice. When the legal machinery fails to deliver justice within a reasonable time, it not only violates the constitutional mandate, but also leads to frustration. The basic duty of the Judges is to protect the fundamental rights of every person, including a complainant and an accused, in all circumstances. They are under obligation to discharge their duties and perform their functions with open mind, without any influence or pressure, fear or favour, affection or ill-will, honestly, justly and to the best of their ability, by applying the Constitution and law in their true perspective, on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. In doing so, they are required to get the assistance of lawyers, prosecutors and guidance from the judgments of this Court and the High Courts, in order to reach a correct conclusion. This will protect the fundamental rights of the people to a possible extent, will serve the interest of justice, and will also boost faith and confidence of people in our judicial system. We do not doubt the integrity and competence of any Judge. There might be multiple reasons for wrong decision, but there should be no excuse for a Judge in delivering a judgment contrary to the law and facts. In any case, the Judges must be aware of their judicial powers and must exercise them to reach a correct conclusion, in order to protect the fundamental rights of the people and to promote the interest of justice.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (“Cr.P.C.”) provides a procedure for investigation of criminal cases and their trial. Section 173 of Cr.P.C. requires that the police must complete investigation and submit its report within a period of 14 days from the date of recording of an FIR. In most of the cases, the investigating officers submit reports with unjustified delay, which is one of the obstacles in early disposal of cases. Similarly, non-observance of mandatory provisions of Cr.P.C. and relevant Rules by the investigating officers, result into acquittal of real culprits. Sometimes, false accusation is made against persons who in reality, are not involved in a case, but for no reason, they are subjected to prolong litigations. Because of the neglect of the investigating authorities, the real culprit is either kept from being punished for the offence actually committed or an innocent person is detained or even wrongly convicted by the courts. Such act of the investigating officers is in violation of the Constitution and law. In any case, it is against the fundamental rights of a person, which eventually creates a wrong perception and sends a negative message against the judiciary.

It is obligatory upon the Trial Court to ensure constitutional guarantee of life, liberty, fair trial and due process enshrined in Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution. Section 265-D of Cr. P.C. provides that the Trial Court should consider all the available material, where after, if it is of the opinion that there is ground for proceeding with the trial of the accused, it shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. If no charge could be framed or if charge is framed, but there is no probability of the accused being convicted of the charge on the basis of the material available on the record, the Trial Court has power under sections 265-K and 249-A, of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, to acquit an accused at any stage of the case, either on its own motion or upon an application in this behalf filed by an accused after providing opportunity of hearing to all concern. Such power is mandatory in nature, which must be exercised judiciously in order to prevent the abuse of process of law and frivolous and malicious litigation, which will also result into curtailing the backlog.

Another issue which is being faced by the litigants is the inordinate and unreasonable delay in conclusion of criminal trials and appeals/petitions, without any substantial progress, which is a crucial challenge to the Administration of Criminal Justice System in our country. Such delay is antithetic to the foundational principles of liberty, fair trial and due process. Under such circumstances, it is the primary duty of the investigating agencies and every judge of the country to take into account such fundamental rights of persons, whose cases are brought before them by strict adherence to law. The present case is a classic example, wherein, the respondents were arrested in the year 2008, they were convicted by the Trial Court on 12.01.2011 and remained in custody till 13.01.2015, when they were acquitted by the Appellate Court. Though the respondents got acquittal, but they did not get justice in time. No one can justify the detention of the respondents, depriving them from their constitutional right of liberty and free movement for long seven years. In addition, they have faced the agony and misery of a prolonged trial and unreasonable delay in conclusion of appeal, besides incurring expenditure. They remained uncompensated, because there is no mechanism for doing so. The famous legal maxim that justice delayed is justice denied, is often used when unjustified delay occurs in disposal of disputes. When the legal machinery fails to deliver justice within a reasonable time, it not only violates the constitutional mandate, but also leads to frustration. Thus, an inexpensive and timely justice is a requirement of the Constitution, which must be observed by all stakeholders in all circumstances without any excuse.

There is no doubt that the prosecuting agencies and the courts are over-burdened because of increase in the number of cases as a result of population explosion and lack of basic facilities, necessary for early dispensation of justice, but still they are under constitutional and legal obligations to conduct and conclude fair investigation and fair trial within a stipulated period to the possible extent, or in a reasonable period where there is no time limit provided by law for doing so. Within the prevailing system, it is difficult to achieve the desired results, but some improvements could be made into the system by proper management in order to streamline the investigation and judicial proceedings. Such goal cannot be achieved without the cooperation of investigating agencies, complainants, lawyers, prosecutors and all relevant persons/authorities. It is incumbent upon investigating officers, lawyers and prosecutors to follow the law and cooperate with courts so as to avoid unnecessary and unjustified delays in early disposal of the cases. Likewise, cooperation between investigating agencies and prosecutors/ complainants is essential in order to pursue the matter to ensure timely and fair conclusion of the cases.

To address the deficiencies in prosecution’s cases, and to avoid unreasonable delays in the timely conclusion of criminal trials and appeals, it is an obligation of the State under Article 37(d) of the Constitution to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice. In this behalf, the vacancies of judicial officers across the country must be filled in on merits, without any delay; to consider increase in the number of judges, wherever it is so required; to ensure upgradation of the investigation mechanism, introduction of modern techniques, equipments, devices and tools; conducting regular and fruitful training courses for the investigating officials; ensuring independence of judiciary and the investigating agencies, providing basic facilities, friendly and workable atmosphere to the Courts, the investigating agencies, ensuring safety and protection of the judicial officers, investigating officials and witnesses. The Government must also take steps to curb the trend of registration of false and frivolous litigation; and to ensure that the frivolous litigants are not let off scot-free for such acts. By taking all such measures, certain laws are required to be amended or certain legislation is required, which may be considered by the Government and the Parliament/Assemblies. Till the time, such a policy is devised or necessary enactments are made, the courts must exercise their powers already granted by available laws to do complete justice and to discourage frivolous and malicious litigation.