Judicial officers may face action for trial delays

A bill prepared by the law ministry has proposed disciplinary action against judicial officers for delaying trial in criminal cases.

In the Criminal Law Reforms 2021, the ministry has suggested insertion of a new Section 265P in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (CrPC) for prescribing timelines for the completion of a trial.

Under the proposal, the court will complete the trial within nine months.

It is also proposed that the court will submit a progress report of any pending trial to the high court concerned. It will also give reasons for its inability to expeditiously conclude the trial, with copies to the federal law secretary and respective provincial law secretaries.

Read PBC accuses superior judiciary of biasness

"In case, the high court finds the reasons given by the court under Sub-section 2 to be plausible and beyond the control of the court, it may accept the explanation of the court and prescribe fresh timelines for conclusion of trial," the section read.

It is also stated that the federal or provincial governments would remove difficulties, hindrances and obstacles for the conclusion of the trial expeditiously if the high court identified them.

However, the draft proposed that if the federal or provincial law secretary was of the opinion that the delay in the disposal of the trial was attributable to the presiding officer of the court or any of their functionaries, the opinion would be conveyed to the high court concerned proposing suitable action.

The law ministry's draft further suggested that where the high court was of the view that the delay in the disposal of the trial was attributable to the presiding officer of the court or any of its functionaries, it would commence or direct the commencement of appropriate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law against them.

"The chief justice of every high court shall nominate a judge along with other officers of the high court for acting under the section."

A new Section 344B in CrPC is introduced wherein the court is empowered to prescribe case management schedule not later than seven days from the date when it takes cognisance of the trial.

The proceedings will not be deferred or halted on account of pendency of application for the grant of bail, acquittal or quashment or any other matter. The court shall fix separate dates for hearing of applications and trial proceedings.

It is also suggested that the new section would be inserted whereby the right of appeal was given to legal heirs in case a convict before filing an appeal against conviction in the same manner as prescribed in the code as if the deceased was alive.

In respect of absconders, the proposal is that apart from attachment of movable and immovable properties, the court may also order blockage of CNIC, passport, bank cards and bank accounts. However, if the proclaimed offender appears before the court, the court would order unblocking of their computerised CNIC, etc.

Read more Only courts can punish lawbreakers: Sarwar

Similarly, another Section 365A is inserted in CrPC for recording of evidence in criminal cases. Under the new section, the evidence of all witnesses and the accused including examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination or any other statement will be recorded through electronic, audio means or any modern device where after the recording shall be transcribed verbatim in the same language in which evidence has been uttered.

In cases involving documentary evidence, the witnesses may submit his written witness statement duly signed under oath that shall be treated as examination in chief and then be subject to cross-examination and re-examination, if required.

In case the witness is unable to attend, his evidence may be recorded through video link under strict protocols as envisaged under the proposed section. The court may dispense with the requirements of Section 353.

It is also proposed that the pronouncement of judgment after the conclusion of the trial would not be delayed beyond one month.

In case it is not possible, the presiding officer shall submit explanation to the high court stating the justification for the delay and also specifying the timeline in which the judgment would be announced.