Dispensation of justice

  1. Normal civil and criminal Courts are expected to decide the cases by dispensing the justice not by disposing the cases — It is quality of justice not the number of cases, decided, which is the requirement of dispensation of justice. Hakam Deen v. State and 15 others 2006 SCR 120 (Z) 2001 P.Cr. L.J. 1293 rel.
  2. Quick or hurried conclusion of cases is good and delay in dispensation of justice is really denying it — However, balance has to be stuck between delayed justice and hasty justice — If delay ensures justice, nothing bad in it, through not in good taste — But if haste distorts justice it is worst than the delay. Hakam Deen v. State and 15 others 2006 SCR 120 (AA)
  3. Dispensation of justice is a corporate business — Everybody involved in it responsible for his acts and commissions — However, trial Court’s responsibility is greater and more onerous and on it depends the edifice of the case in all the appellate Courts and hangs the fate of the parties — They have to be more compassionate, people friendly and procedural watch dogs — However, it is a noble endeavour that cases should be expeditiously decided — But it must be in accordance with law of the land . Hakam Deen v. State and 15 others 2006 SCR 120 (BB)
  4. The policy of judiciary throughout the world is that the cases are placed for hearing in order of their date of institution — The older cases ordinarily rank first followed up by the cases filed thereafter — It should not be like that as said, “Haste makes Waste”  — There can be no such policy and if there is any, it is against the accepted principles of justice, fairplay, equity and good conscience  —  The Courts are to keep in mind that heirs of deceased or injured person are competent to forgive, compromise or compound the case or seek Diyyat — Unwarranted haste, without given the aggrieved person a chance to think about forgiving the accused as Allah ordains, may at times militate against the above mandate of Almighty Allah. Hakam Deen v. State 2006 SCR 120 (CC)
  5. Justice is a divine duty and divinity demands clemency, forbearance, patience, humility, magnanimity, temperateness, modesty, benevolence — This duty  has to be pursued with perseverance and dignity —It has to be kept in mind that an accused is to be tried and prosecuted with due process of law not persecuted with vindictiveness. Hakam Deen v. State 2006 SCR 120 (DD)
  6. The Court directed as follows for observance by all the Courts in Azad Jammu and Kashmir that:- 1.    The cases shall be taken up for trial, hearing and decision in order of pendency, however, if it is otherwise inevitable, reasons shall be recorded for it.2.    Trial in criminal cases shall be completed within reasonable time by strictly following the procedure laid down in Chapter XX and XXII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  as the case may be, irrespective of any direction otherwise; 3.    Witnesses in criminal cases shall be called after the accused is charge sheeted, and trial shall continue till the entire evidence is recorded, unless reasonable circumstances duly recorded otherwise warrant; 4.    In the cases of Qisas, Diyyat or Tazir, if the parties seek adjournments for negotiating compromise, Court shall allow reasonable time for it, failing which trial shall be concluded and case decided within a reasonable time from the date of conclusion of trial; and 5.    The trial for the purpose of this order shall be deemed to have commenced from the date when the trial starts after taking cognizance. Hakam Deen v. State and 15 others 2006 SCR 120 (EE)
  7. —Concept of—See Parveen Akhtar Chaudhary v. Rifat Rani & others  2022 SCR 714 (B)
error: Content is protected !!