PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has ruled that the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process applies to all laws and legal proceedings, even in cases where the law does not clearly mention it, including summary trials.
Justice Mohammad Naeem Anwar, heading a single-member bench, dismissed a petition filed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government challenging a sessions court order that had overturned the conviction and fine imposed on a sugar hoarder.
Earlier, on July 12, 2023, a sessions judge had accepted the appeal of Malik Saddam Jan and ordered the refund of Rs200,000 that had been recovered from him as a fine for allegedly hoarding large quantities of sugar in his warehouse.
In a detailed seven-page judgment, the court examined relevant laws, including the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Covid-19 (Prevention of Hoarding) Act, 2020. The bench ruled that Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process, applies to every statute and legal proceeding, even when procedural laws are silent.
The court explained that due process requires proper notice of proceedings, a reasonable opportunity to defend oneself, a fair and impartial hearing, and a competent legal forum. It stressed that courts, tribunals, and executive authorities are duty-bound to follow lawful procedures, allow parties to present evidence, and ensure fairness throughout the process.
The judgment noted that if minimum standards of fairness under Article 10-A are not followed, the entire proceedings become invalid.Rejecting the government’s plea, the court held that the sessions judge had committed no legal or jurisdictional error by entertaining the appeal and ordering a refund of the fine.
The government’s lawyer argued that Malik Saddam Jan had been caught red-handed and had confessed to the offence, after which the assistant commissioner of Shah Alam tehsil, acting as a special magistrate, fined him Rs200,000 on April 19, 2023, under the relevant hoarding laws. The lawyer claimed that the sessions court was legally barred from hearing the appeal.
However, the respondent’s counsel contended that the proceedings conducted by the assistant commissioner were unlawful from start to finish.
The court observed that the order of the special magistrate was appealable because the fine exceeded the limit set under Section 14-A of the CrPC. It added that in appealable summary cases, Section 264 of the CrPC requires recording of evidence and a reasoned judgment.
The bench pointed out that the government failed to provide any proper record of the trial proceedings. Despite repeated court orders, records of the summary trial — including the complaint, conviction order, or evidence — were not produced. The only document available was a printed receipt showing payment of the fine.The court noted that the receipt did not clearly state under which law the accused was convicted and contained only a vague handwritten endorsement such as “pleads guilty.”
It ruled that such an endorsement could not be treated as a lawful confession or a valid judicial order. As a result, the court declared that the entire proceedings were legally flawed and stood invalid.