Judges should perform duties without any fear, pressure: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) has held that judges are bound by the constitution and law to give decisions without any fear and pressure.

A three-member SC bench, headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, dismissed an appeal of a petitioner against a judgment, passed by the Lahore High Court in a case of kidnapping for ransom.

The court, while issuing written order in the matter, upheld the LHC verdict, acquitting the suspects in the case.

The judgment, authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, held that the basic duty of judges was to protect fundamental rights of every person, including a complainant and an accused, in all circumstances.

“They are under an 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,” the court held. In doing so, the court held that they were required to get the assistance of lawyers, prosecutors and guidance from the judgments of the apex court and the high courts, in order to reach a correct conclusion.

“This will protect the fundamental rights of people to a possible extent, will serve the interest of justice, and will also boost faith and confidence of people in our judicial system,” said the written order.

“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, 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 people and to promote the interest of justice,” the judgment further said.

The court noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC) provides a procedure for investigation of criminal cases and their trial. Section 173 of CrPC 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 (IOs) submit reports with unjustified delay, which is one of the obstacles in early disposal of cases. Similarly, non-observance of mandatory provisions of CrPC and relevant rules by the investigating officers, result in 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,” read the judgment.

Petitioner Mahboob Hassan had lodged an FIR on July 13, 2006 against unknown persons, under sections 365-A, 201, 34 PPC and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, at Police Station City Haroonabad, district Bahawalnagar, for abduction of his nephew, Muhammad Farrukh Iqbal.

The respondents were arrested in connection with some other case. It is the prosecution’s claim that, during investigation whereof, the private respondents allegedly confessed before the investigating officer regarding their involvement in the present case.

Consequently, they were subjected to identification parade in presence of a magistrate, where the witnesses identified the respondents as the persons, who received the ransom amount.

It was also alleged that during the interrogation, upon disclosure of Kamran (respondent No. 4) and Muhammad Boota (respondent No. 3), an amount of Rs100,000 and Rs50,000 was recovered from their respective houses on August 7, 2008 and Augusta 21, 2008. On conclusion of trial, the respondents were convicted and sentenced.

On an appeal, they were acquitted of the charge by the High Court through the impugned judgment, hence, the petition for leave to appeal was filed.

The SC dismissed the appeal and directed that the amount recovered from respondents No 3 and 4 should be returned to them.