The Peshawar High Court has ruled that the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process applies to all laws and proceedings, even where statutes are silent, including summary trials. The verdict reinforces Article 10-A of the Constitution as a universal safeguard in Pakistan’s legal system.
Justice Mohammad Naeem Anwar delivered the ruling while dismissing a provincial government plea challenging a sessions judge’s decision in a hoarding case. The bench upheld the earlier order that set aside the conviction and fine imposed by a special magistrate on a sugar trader.
Read More: PHC upholds military court sentences in cases of terror charges
The case dates back to April 2023, when an assistant commissioner, acting as a special magistrate, fined Malik Saddam Jan Rs200,000 for allegedly hoarding sugar. The sessions court later allowed the trader’s appeal and ordered a refund of the fine, citing procedural flaws.
In its detailed judgment, the high court held that due process requires proper notice, a reasonable opportunity to defend, an impartial forum, and lawful jurisdiction. These minimum standards, the court said, must be observed even in summary proceedings.
The bench emphasised that courts, tribunals, and executive authorities are duty-bound to follow lawful procedures. Failure to meet basic fairness standards renders proceedings legally unsustainable, regardless of the nature of the offence or the speed of the trial.
Rejecting the government’s argument that the sessions court lacked jurisdiction, the court noted that the fine exceeded statutory limits under the Code of Criminal Procedure, making the order appealable. It also highlighted the absence of any proper trial record.
According to the judgment, the government failed to produce key documents, including the complaint, conviction order, or evidence recorded during the trial. Only a printed receipt of fine payment was available, which the court said did not meet legal requirements.
Read More: PHC sets aside sole arbitrator appointment in UET case
The bench ruled that a vague endorsement such as “pleads guilty” could not be treated as a lawful confession or a valid judicial order. As a result, the entire proceedings were declared vitiated.
The ruling is expected to have broader implications, reinforcing the obligation of authorities to uphold due process and fairness in all criminal and quasi-criminal cases.