No one prosecuted for perjury in three years: SHC

ISLAMABAD: The Sindh High Court (SHC) and its subordinate courts have not prosecuted anyone over the past three years for perjury under Sections 193-196 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).

This was stated in a reply submitted by SHC’s registrar in a case regarding judicial reforms.

The case was filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by five lawyers – Umer Gilani, Hadiya Aziz, Muhammad Haider Imtiaz, Attaullah Hakim Kundi and Raheel Ahmed.
Among others, registrars of all high courts, the federal and provincial governments were nominated as respondents.

The applicants sought the Supreme Court’s orders for improving the capacity and performance of the justice administration.

According to data submitted by the SHC, over the past three years, the entire Sindh judiciary, including the SHC itself, awarded costs amounting to just Rs729,000.

The SHC agreed that rules regarding maximum time-limits, the imposition of costs and anti-perjury provisions need to be enforced. The SHC suggested that the proper forum for this rule-making exercise would be the National Judiciary Policy Making Committee.

The high court also placed on record a research report authored by advocate Summayah Zaidi of the Legal Aid Society, containing a detailed analysis of bottlenecks in civil trials.

A decision in a civil case is rendered in 245 days in Karachi central and 353 days in Karachi Malir. In Sukkar, a decision in civil cases can take as long as 522 days.

Suggesting ways and means for improving the criminal justice system, the reply stated that a committee of the judiciary for Sindh Rule of law roadmap development has been set up to address all legal aspects and issues. The committee is headed by Justice (retd) Khilji Arif Hussain.

It stated that infrastructure was being developed and all district courts had been shifted to new premises.

Sindh, it is learnt, plans to set up a forensic laboratory like the one in Punjab.

Highlighting the importance of circumstantial and forensic evidence, the report stated that it was quickly replacing “direct and ocular evidence”.

Alternate dispute resolution system was “still primitive in Pakistan” and ways and means to make it more effective were still being discussed.

One of the petitioner, Umer Gilani, told The Express Tribune that the SHC’s reply had confirmed fears expressed in the petition that the judiciary was not implementing the law of costs as laid down in Sections 35 and 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908.

Because of this non-implementation of the law by the judiciary, frivolous litigations proliferated, clogging the entire justice system.

“In our view, this confirms … that the courts are not implementing the law as laid down in Sections 192 to 195 of the Pakistan Penal Code of 1860. Because of this, false testimonies and false affidavits have become a regular feature … in Pakistan”, says Gilani.

Source: Express Tribune