National Judicial Policy 2009

The Chief Justice of Pakistan/Chairman, National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee (NJPMC) in his introductory speeches and remarks during the 4-day meeting (18–19 April & 16–17 May 2009) of the NJPMC, made important observations, the substance of which follows: “The Meeting of the NJPMC has been convened at a critical moment of our national history. There has occurred a gradual deterioration in the law and order situation and parts of the country are experiencing militancy and violence, causing the displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent people – men, women, children and elderly.

These are difficult times. We face existential threats. But I do not think that the difficulties are insurmountable. We are a tenacious nation, have demonstrated, more than once, our strength and ability to face challenges. The lawyers’ movement for restoration of independent-minded judges and supremacy of law/Constitution is a case in point. The movement for a grand cause was thronged by enthusiastic groups including civil society organisations, professional groups, political parties and students, etc. In the evening of 15 March 2009, the movement transformed itself into a mini-revolution.

It demonstrated the agility and determination of the masses to stand by the Constitution and dispensation of power under this supreme law. It emboldened me to say today, that together we could face challenges and convert them into opportunities. I have full faith in the ability of the people to rise to the occasion and chalk out a future course of action, based on democratic values and constitutional principles. The restoration of 3 November (2007) judiciary has ushered in a new era: an era of hope that political dispensation in the country and 1.

NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY governance shall be in accordance with the constitutional principles. The people of Pakistan have reposed great confidence in the ability of the judiciary to redress their grievances and grant them relief. They have very high expectations of the courts to settle their disputes, restore their rights/entitlements and maintain peace in society by sending the guilty behind bars. I thank the people for believing on us! We must strive to meet their expectations. This is time to repay our debt to the nation.

We could do so by addressing the perennial twin-problems of “backlog” and “delays” in the system of administration of justice. To achieve the objective, we need to formulate new judicial policy. I had asked the Secretariat of the NJPMC to prepare a framework of action for clearing the backlog and expeditious disposal of cases. The draft is before you. Let us examine it and evolve a strategy for the purpose. I want the active participation of all stakeholders of the justice sector, essentially the members of the bench and the bar and also related agencies viz police/prison department and prosecution branch.

The Policy that we ultimately approve would be one that has broad ownership. That is why extensive consultations have been carried out to get the viewpoint of judges, lawyers, litigants and others. The Policy seeks to achieve its objectives, by efficient utilisation of existing resources. We have to operate by remaining within the given legal/procedural framework. The laws are indeed time-tested. Given earnest effort by the bench and the bar, I am confident of achieving positive results. However, keeping in view the gigantic effort new resources would be needed.

We would be very economical in the utilization of the needed resources. I am confident that the Government will provide the requisite funds, as our effort is to strengthen the administration and improve governance. It is necessary for peace and security, thereby spurring trade/commercial activities and foreign/local investment in the economy. This is how, the industrialised countries progressed. This is 2 NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY how, we can move forward. We could achieve the results by establishing a society based on the supremacy of Constitution and rule of law. Our aim is to provide Justice for All.

I thank the members of NJPMC for endorsing my proposal to celebrate 2009, as the year for Justice at the Grassroot Level. The key features of the National Judicial Policy are strengthening the independence of the judiciary by its separation from the executive and ridding the courts of the menace of corruption, thereby presenting a clean and positive image of judiciary. In the Policy, we have set high goals for ourselves. The goals are to initially reduce, and ultimately eliminate, backlog at the level of superior as well as subordinate courts, and further, to fix time frame for disposal of civil and criminal cases.

The criminal cases will get priority on account of the sub-human conditions in which under-trial prisoners are kept in jails. Writs for protection of fundamental rights i. e. right to life, liberty, equality, property and freedom of thought, conscience, association, etc will also be maintained on fast track. Furthermore, financial/rent matters and family/juveniles cases will also receive preference, which is crucial for economic development and protection of family values.

In the ultimate analysis, the new Policy seeks to ensure that the constitutional principles of equality before law and equal protection of law are strictly adhered to. Adherence to law/Constitution leads to nation building. It is a sure recipe for economic growth and social progress. Law protects the rights/interests of poor/downtrodden segments of society. It helps to break shackles of cruelty/injustice. It puts an end to exploitation of the underdog by the rich/influential. Let us strive to achieve the noble goals, set in the Policy.

Let us infuse confidence in the minds of our people that the system of administration of justice is capable of meeting the challenges of time and emerging realities. Let us make the judicial organ of the state as a sheet anchor at the time of serious challenges. I have no doubt that 3 NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY my brother Judges in the superior courts and judicial officers would help and support us in our drive to steer the ship of the nation through troubled waters. I am equally confident of the help and support of the members of the bar.

We have carried out very wide consultations with them as well as other stakeholders. Their valuable suggestions have been incorporated in the Policy. The Policy will be launched effective from 1 June 2009 and will be actively monitored by the NJPMC. I should continue to meet judges and bar members for its smooth implementation”. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry Chief Justice of Pakistan 4 NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY Executive Summary The National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC) in 2 marathon sessions lasting over 4 days considered and approved a uniform National Judicial Policy.

The Policy is an attempt to streamline the judicial system in the country and make it responsive to the present-day requirements of society. The objective is to clear the huge backlog that has accumulated over the years at all level of judicial hierarchy. The current pendency of cases is as follows: Superior judiciary i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. Supreme Court of Pakistan Federal Shariat Court Lahore High Court High Court of Sindh Peshawar High Court High Court of Balochistan Total 19055 2092 84704 18571 10363 4160 138945 Subordinate judiciary i. ii. iii. iv. Punjab Sindh NWFP Balochistan Total 1225879 144942 187441.

7664 1565926 As is obvious from the above table, there is huge backlog of cases pending before courts, at all levels of judicial hierarchy. The figure does not include the pendency before the special courts / administrative tribunals, which is equally high. The backlog has accumulated due to various reasons/factors but essentially it is due to inadequate budgetary allocation. The gradual increase in population as well as litigation has never been addressed through appropriate development plans for expansion in infrastructure and increase in strength and capacity of courts.

Courts have continuously suffered on account of shortage of funds. As is manifest from the table below, budgetary allocation to judiciary is negligible. Not even 1% of Federal/Provincial budget is allocated for the third pillar of the State. No wonder then, the judges are overburdened. To quote an example, in the Province of Punjab, an average, the judicial officer has to deal with a cause list of 1668 cases per day, which is humanly not possible. The problem of shortage of funds, to some extent was addressed by the Access to Justice 5 NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY.

Programme of the Government of Pakistan but more needs to be done. The Government must therefore address the problem of shortage of funds to enable the judiciary to cope with the twinproblems of “backlog” and “delays”. Statement Showing Budgetary Allocation and Strength of Judiciary in Pakistan Staff Sr. No Name of Court Sanctioned Strength Working Strength BPS 1 to 16 BPS 17 & above Total Federal/ Provincial Budget (In Rs. ) Allocation for Judiciary (In Rs. ) Percentage of Total Rev. / Exp for the Year 2008-09 1 2 3 Supreme Court of Pakistan Federal Shariat Court Lahore High Court Subordinate Judiciary:

CJ + 29 CJ + 7 CJ + 59 CJ + 27 CJ + 4 CJ + 53 606 190 1249 145 64 349 751 254 1598 4,630,292,869,000 4,630,292,869,000 256,948,656,000 354,500,000 82,408,000 2,201,867,000 0. 00765% 0. 001779% 0. 86% 36 i. Distt. & Sessions Judge 4 ii. Addl. Distt & Sessions Judge iii. Senior Civil Judge iv. Civil Judge / Judicial Magistrate 5 High Court of Sindh Subordinate Judiciary: 62 i. Distt. & Sessions Judge 6 ii. Addl. Distt & Sessions Judge iii. Senior Civil Judge iv. Civil Judge / Judicial Magistrate 7 Peshawar High Court Subordinate Judiciary: 24 i. Distt. & Sessions Judge 8 ii.

Addl. Distt & Sessions Judge iii. Senior Civil Judge iv. Civil Judge / Judicial Magistrate 9 High Court of Balochistan Subordinate Judiciary: 24 i. Distt. & Sessions Judge ii. Addl. Distt & Sessions Judge 10 iii. Senior Civil Judge iv. Civil Judge/Jud. Magis. /Family Judges v. Qazi/Member, Majlis-e-Shoora 12 124 42 27 97 24 201 CJ + 10 90 98 200 CJ + 19 290 37 754 CJ + 39 36 261 37 617 CJ + 36 10631 – 10631 790 279 1069 180,987,200,000 1,234,504,000 0. 68% 24 78 85 193 CJ + 12 4242 – 4242 321 68 389 170,558,000,000. 873 613,203,000 0. 17% 20 87 20 183 CJ + 4 3566 –

3566 356 58 414 65,943,525,270 470,679,870 0. 36% 17 19 1773 8 69 35 1773 6 NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY The historical movement for restoration of independent-minded judges, supremacy of the Constitution and rule of law, ultimately triumphed. It led to heightened expectations of the public that the judicial organ would promptly respond to their agonies and dispense justice to all and sundr y. Conscious of the public expectations/aspirations, the Chief Justice of Pakistan decided to initiate the process of formulating a new judicial policy for expediting trial proceedings.

He assigned the task to the Secretariat of NJPMC to devise an appropriate strategy and work plan for action. The NJPMC is a statutory body the nation’s apex judicial forum. It is headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan and comprises Chief Justice, Federal Shariat Court and 4 Chief Justices of High Courts, as members. The Secretary, Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan is designated as the Secretary to the Committee. The Committee is required, inter alia, to prepare and implement judicial policy for all courts, tribunals and qasi-judicial institutions.

The functions of the Committee are: 1. Improving the capacity and performance of the administration of justice; 2. Setting performance standards for judicial officers and persons associated with performance of judicial and qasijudicial functions; 3. Improvement in the terms and conditions of service of judicial officers and court staff, to ensure skilled and efficient judiciary; and 4. Publication of the annual or periodic reports of the Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court, High Courts, courts subordinate to High Courts, Administrative Courts and Tribunals.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan/Chairman NJPMC convened a 2-day session of the Committee on 18-19 April 2009 to consider a draft providing for steps to strengthen judicial independence, check corrupt practices in the judicial system and prioritize certain 7 NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY categories of cases for expeditious disposal. The meeting lasted for 2-days; in one session, the representatives of the bar including Vice Chairman, Pakistan Bar Council, Vice Chairmen, 4 Provincial Bar Councils, President, Supreme Court Bar Association and Presidents, all High Court Bar Associations were also invited.

After thorough deliberations, a draft report was approved. It was decided that the approved draft will be circulated to all the relevant stakeholders of the justice sector for getting their input. Accordingly, the draft policy was forwarded to all judges of the Supreme Court, High Courts and Subordinate Courts. Copies of the draft were also forwarded to the President, Supreme Court Bar Association, all High Courts Bar Associations, all District Bar Associations and all Tehsil Bar Associations.

Copies were also forwarded to Attorney General for Pakistan, all Advocates General, all Prosecutors General, Secretary, Law and Justice Division, Secretaries of 4 provincial Law Departments, all Inspectors General of Police, all Inspectors General of Prisons, members of the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, etc. The Secretary, NJPMC also gave a press briefing to share the draft report with the media and general public. The draft was also placed on the LJCP website for input. The draft National Judicial Policy was subjected to thorough analysis at various fora.

The members of the bar held in-house sessions to discuss the report. The District & Sessions Judges convened meetings of district judiciary alongwith representatives of the District/Tehsil Bar and forwarded their recommendations to the respective High Court. The Chief Justices of High Court held consultations with the judges of the High Court, District & Sessions Judges and representative of the High Court Bar Associations. Similarly, consultations took place in the office of Attorney General for Pakistan, Advocates General, Secretary, Law and Justice Division and Law Departments, etc.

The output of such deliberations was forwarded to the Secretary, NJPMC. Many judges of superior courts, members of the bar also contributed input (list of institutions/individuals from whom replies received is at Annexure). 8 NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY The input/recommendations received from various fora/individual members were examined and a comprehensive draft prepared. The draft was initially discussed in a meeting, chaired by the Registrar, Supreme Court/Secretary, NJPMC and attended by the Registrar of the Federal Shariat Court and 4 High Courts.

The Committee of Registrars compiled a uniform policy draft for consideration. The NJPMC considered the draft in its meeting on 16-17 May 2009. After exhaustive deliberations lasting for 2 days, the Committee finally approved the National Judicial Policy. The Committee decided that the respective High Court would make strategies and prepare plans for effective implementations of the Policy. The Policy will be released on 30th May 2009 in a press briefing by the Registrar, Supreme Court/Secretary NJPMC and come into force on 1st June 2009.

The thrust of the National Judicial Policy is to consolidate and strengthen the independence of judiciary, thereby enabling the Judicial Organ to exercise institutional and administrative independence and judges to have decisional independence to decide cases fairly and impartially. In this regard, important decisions have been made including the determination of the Chief Justices of High Courts to decline appointments as acting Governor of the province and recall of all judges working in executive departments of the Federal/Provincial governments.

The Policy also lays stress on proper conduct and judicial propriety, on the part of judges, to maintain a clean image of the judiciary. Following the repeated assertions of the Chief Justice of Pakistan to show “Zerotolerance for corruption in judiciary”, the new Policy provides several steps/measures to nab and punish corrupt judicial officers and court staff. Greater vigilance will be exercised by the respective Chief Justices in eradicating corruption in all its forms and manifestations.

The Policy provides strategy and plans for the clearance of backlog, expeditious resolution of disputes and quick dispensation of justice. Particular attention is given to timely disposal of criminal cases 9 NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY especially the cases of under-trial prisoners, languishing in jails. Urgency has been accorded to cases involving violation of fundamental rights and restraint on liberty/freedom of individual. Therefore, bail matters will be quickly decided. Certain categories of cases, having close nexus with economic development and good governance, have been prioritized.

It includes disputes pertaining to trade, commerce, investment, taxes, duties etc. The family cases, juvenile offences, rent matters, drugs/terrorism cases will also be kept on fast track for quick disposal. The plan of action provides for disposal of all pending cases within one year. Newly instituted cases in the Supreme Court and High Courts will also be decided in one year period from date of filing. The High Court and Subordinate Courts in the province of Balochistan will be able to decide all pending cases within six months and all fresh cases in six months time from the date of institution.

This is indeed a tall claim and difficult goal but equally strong is the determination of the NJPMC to honour its commitment to the nation. It would require gigantic efforts and hard work but every effort will be made to achieve the desired goals by full and effective utilization of existing resources. However, where new resources are required, the government will be approached for allocation of necessary funds for the purpose. Dr. Faqir Hussain Secretary 10 NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY National Judicial Policy A.

1) INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY In future no chief justice or a judge of the superior court shall accept appointment as acting Governor of a Province. No retired judge of the superior court shall accept an appointment which is lower to his status or dignity including appointment as presiding officer of Banking Court, Customs Court, Administrative Tribunal, etc. The Committee asked the retired judges of the superior judiciary to maintain the highest standards of decorum and voluntarily relinquish the charge of such posts which are lower to their status to earn respect in public and uphold the principle of the independence of judiciary.

The Committee asked the Secretary, National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee to write letters to the Secretary, Establishment Division and Provincial Chief Secretaries to relieve all such judges and may not make such appointments in future. 3) Instead of appointing retired judges/judicial officers as presiding officers of the special court/tribunal, qualified serving judges be appointed against these posts, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. Posting of serving judges against executive posts in Federal and Provincial Government Departments on deputation be discontinued.

All such judges should be repatriated to the respective High Courts, where their services are needed most for expeditious disposal of pending cases. 11 2) 4) NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY 5) All special courts/tribunals under the administrative control of Executive must be placed under the control and supervision of the judiciary, their appointments/postings should be made on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of concerned High Court. In future the judiciary would avoid its involvement in the conduct of elections, as it distracts the judicial officers from professional duty and complaints of corrupt practices tarnish the image of judiciary.

The reputation of judiciary is at stake during election due to involvement of vested interests groups, etc in corrupt practices. On the other hand, it also adversely affects the judicial functions of the courts. Even otherwise, the Conduct of General Elections Order 2002, Representation of the People Act, 1976 and Local Government Ordinance 2001 do not contain any provision which requires that the elections are to be held under the supervision of the Judiciary.

Therefore, in future, the Judiciary should remain aloof from the process of election to focus on disposal of cases. However, in case of request from the Government, the NJPMC would decide the extent to which and form of help to be extended to Government in the conduct of elections. The judiciary will continue to extend support and cooperation in adjudication of election related disputes/complaints as provided under the law. 6) 12 NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY B.

MISCONDUCT The Judges of the superior courts should follow the Code of Conduct prescribed for judges. They should take all steps necessary to decide cases within the shortest possible time. As provided by Article X of the Code of Conduct: “In his judicial work a Judge shall take all steps to decide cases within the shortest time, controlling effectively efforts made to prevent early disposal of cases and make every endeavor to minimize suffering of litigants by deciding cases expeditiously through proper written judgments.

A judge who is unmindful or indifferent towards this aspect of his duty is not faithful to his work, which is a grave fault”. Hence, the Chief Justice of concerned High Court may report cases of violation of Code of Conduct including incidents of unusual delays/inefficient performance to the Chairman, Supreme Judicial Council for action. The prime duty of a judge is to present before the public a clean image of judiciary. The oath of a judge implies complete submission to the Constitution and under the Constitution to the law.

Subject to these governing obligations, his function of interpretation and application of the Constitution and the law is to be discharged for the maintenance of rule of law. To be a living embodiment of these powers, functions and obligations call for possession of the highest qualities of intellect and character. Equally, it imposes patterns of behavior, which are the hallmark of distinction of a judge among his fellow-men. Therefore, the Committee asked the Chief Justices to report the violations of Code of Conduct to the Supreme Judicial Council for appropriate action. 13 NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY.

C. 1) ERADICATION OF CORRUPTION The code of conduct for subordinate judiciary, framed by the Peshawar High Court and adopted by the Lahore High Court should be considered for adoption by the High Courts of Sindh and Balochistan. The present mechanism for initiation of disciplinary action against corrupt and inefficient judicial officers/court staff be improved. In each High Court a Cell to be called “Cell for Eradication of Corruption from Judiciary” may be established in the office of Registrar, under the supervision of Chief Justice of High Court to entertain complaints with credible evidence.

Copies of such complaints may also be forwarded to the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan. As regards the officers/staff of the Supreme Court, a Judge shall be the Incharge of such Cell. Action should be initiated against those judicial officers/staff that carry persistent reputation of being corrupt or have their life style beyond ostensible means of income. To guard against the evil of nepotism, favoritism, corrupt means, etc, the MITs in High Courts may examine the judgments of the judicial officers to detect incidents of corruption/improper conduct.

All the judicial officers of the subordinate judiciary may be asked to send copies of the judgments including bail/stay orders for scrutiny to MITs. Surprise inspections be carried out by the Chief Justices/judges of the High Courts to monitor the working of subordinate judiciary. In this regard, Judges of the High Courts be designated for each division/district on rotation basis. The District and Sessions Judges should also report about the corruption/misconduct of their subordinate judges. 14 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY 7)

The judge should himself write order sheets, interlocutory orders and register petitions. Appropriate criminal cases under the relevant provisions of law may also be registered against the judicial officers/court staff involved in corruption. The corrupt judicial officers be made OSDs and kept against their post for the purpose of drawing salary only and disciplinary proceedings should be quickly finalized. 8) 9) 10) No judicial officer/official should be posted in home district and those remained posted in a particular district beyond 3 years should be transferred to other district.

11) Naib Courts having completed 3 months attachment with a court should be sent back to their parent department instead of transferring them to other court by rotation. 12) The complaints of corrupt practices and professional misconduct against lawyers addressed to the Chief Justice of High Court should be forwarded to the Bar Council for action. The Council should take immediate action on such complaints under intimation to Registrars of the concerned High Court.

13) Incentives should be given to the honest, efficient and hard working judicial officers including advance increments and posting at stations of choice etc. 15 NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY D. EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES SHORT TERM MEASURES I. CRIMINAL CASES 1) In bailable cases, grant of bail is a statutory right of the accused; therefore, the court before which the accused appears or is brought may immediately release him on bail, subject to furnishing of sureties as provided under section 496 Cr. P. C. Bail application under section 497 Cr. P. C.

with photocopy of the FIR, duly authenticated by the Counsel, should be accepted and the court shall call for record of the case on its own through Naib Court. In bail matters, notice to State for production of record shall not exceed beyond 3 days and all the Provincial Police Officers/Inspectors General of Police shall issue standing instructions to the concerned officers to ensure production of record without delay. Bail applications under section 497 of Cr. P. C. shall be decided not beyond a period of 3 days by the Magistrate, 5 days by Court of Sessions and 7 days by the High Court.

To overcome the problem of congestion in Jails, the court should exercise powers under section 497 Cr. P. C. keeping in view the principles of grant of bail including the principle that if the offence does not fall under the purview of prohibitory clause, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. In case bail is rejected, the court should take all possible measures for disposal of the case to reduce the chances of 16 2) 3) 4) NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY filing of bail petitions before the higher courts.

However, where the accused desires to move the higher court, the trial court should provide attested copies of all the relevant documents to avoid the chance of requisitioning of original record from the trial court which hinders the disposal of case. 5) Applications for cancellation of bail under Sub-section (5) of section 497 Cr. P. C. should be decided within 15 days by the courts including High Court. Grant of bail or otherwise is the discretion of a court and should be exercised diligently and once a bail is granted it should not be withdrawn unless an opportunity is given to the accused.

6) In Criminal Cases it is the duty of the police/investigating agency to submit Challan (Police Report) within a period of 14 days as contemplated in section 173 Cr. P. C. In case of non-completion of investigation, an interim report shall be submitted and in such cases, the court shall not grant remand beyond 15 days period. Non-completion of investigation and non-submission of Challans in statutory period is a major cause of delays in disposal of cases.

Since, Police plays crucial role in administration of justice, therefore, the District Police Officers may be asked to ensure that the police should conclude investigation and submit Challans within the prescribed period of 14 days. They may be asked that the SHOs who fail to comply with this statutory provision should be treated as inefficient officer under the Police Order and the court may also lodge complaint under section 166 PPC against him. The DPOs should also submit list of cases in which Challans are still pending for want of investigation for inspection and passing appropriate orders by the District and Sessions Judge. 17.

7) NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY 8) No judge should grant remand in the absence of accused and while granting remand should strictly adhere to the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and principles laid down in the Hakeem Mumtaz case (PLD 2002 SC 590) All criminal cases punishable with imprisonment for upto 7 years registered after 1st January 2009 be kept on fast track for disposal within 6 months. 9) For disposal of freshly instituted cases within the stipulated period and to avoid piling of cases, there may be practical difficulties but the same can be overcome by extending court timings depending upon the workload.

The extended time could be utilized for writing judgments, framing of charge and other miscellaneous work. 10) All criminal cases punishable with imprisonment from 7 years and above including death cases shall be decided within a period of 1 year. Chapter XX and XXII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prescribe detailed procedure for trial of cases by Magistrate and the Court of Sessions to ensure fair trial for the accused.

Since this procedure takes longer time, therefore to finalize the proceedings, the following measures should be adopted to cut short the delays: a) On receipt of Challan, the court shall immediately fix the case and issue production warrants/notice. When the accused is brought or appears before the court he should be provided with copies of statements and relevant documents as provided under section 241C and 265C Cr. P. C and be directed to ensure presence of his Counsel on the next date of hearing enabling the court to commence the trial. 18 b) NATIONAL JUDICIAL POLICY c) Under section 173 Cr. P.

C, it is the duty of the concerned SHO/ Investigating Officer to produce witnesses and case property before the court during trial. Therefore, the court shall take all necessary measures to bind the SHO/IOs to procure evidence on the fixed date. All efforts sh