Abdul Majeed v. Accountability Judge-I, Quetta,
PCrLJ 2012 1647 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved a man convicted by an Accountability Court in Quetta for "abscondence"—failing to appear for trial—under section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. He was originally accused, along with others, of benefiting from fraudulent vehicle registrations that caused financial loss to the government. When he did not appear in court, the trial proceeded without him, and he was sentenced to three years in prison. He was later arrested in 2012 and challenged both his conviction and sought bail.
His lawyer argued that he never deliberately avoided the court; he was a permanent resident of Rawalpindi, had not been properly served notice, and was arrested peacefully at his own home—showing he was not hiding from the law.
The Balochistan High Court agreed. It found no evidence that the trial court had sent notices to his actual address, and the process server who was supposed to confirm service never testified. Since the prosecution could not prove he had willfully or deliberately absconded, the court held that trying and convicting him in his absence violated his fundamental rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution (right to life, liberty, and fair trial safeguards).
The court set aside his conviction and sentence, sent the case back for a fresh trial where he could properly defend himself, and granted him bail. The case underscores that convicting someone in absentia requires solid proof that they deliberately evaded justice—not just procedural assumptions.
یہ مقدمہ ایک ایسے شخص سے متعلق ہے جسے کوئٹہ کی احتساب عدالت نے قومی احتساب آرڈیننس 1999 کی دفعہ 31-اے کے تحت "روپوشی" یعنی مقدمے کی سماعت میں پیش نہ ہونے کے جرم میں سزا سنائی تھی۔ ابتدائی طور پر اس پر دیگر افراد کے ساتھ مل کر گاڑیوں کی جعلی رجسٹریشن کے ذریعے ناجائز فائدہ اٹھانے کا الزام تھا، جس سے سرکاری خزانے کو مالی نقصان پہنچا تھا۔ جب وہ عدالت میں پیش نہ ہوا تو مقدمے کی کارروائی اس کی غیرموجودگی میں جاری رہی اور اسے تین سال قید کی سزا سنا دی گئی۔ بعد ازاں 2012 میں اسے گرفتار کیا گیا، جس کے بعد اس نے اپنی سزا کو چیلنج کرتے ہوئے ضمانت کی درخواست بھی دائر کی۔
اس کے وکیل کا موقف تھا کہ اس کے موکل نے کبھی جان بوجھ کر عدالت سے روپوشی اختیار نہیں کی۔ وہ راولپنڈی کا مستقل رہائشی تھا، اسے مناسب طریقے سے نوٹس نہیں بھیجا گیا تھا، اور اسے اس کے اپنے گھر سے پرام