ABDUL SHAKOOR Versus THE STATE

On the complaint of Abdul Shakoor petitioner case F.I.R. No,51 dated 27-3-2004 was registered under sections 337-A(ii)/337-L(ii)/ 337-F(i)/447/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Shah Kot, Tehsil and District Sahiwal. In the same very case, a cross-version was recorded vide report No,6 dated 28-3- 2004 at the same police station. The challan pertaining to the said cross-version under sections 302/337-A(i)/ 337-A(ii)/337-L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. Was sent up before the learned Sessions Judge who entrusted the matter to a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal. The challan under the main F.I.R. Was sent before a learned Judicial Magistrate, Chichawatni. The petitioner, in the first instance, filed an application before the Magistrate informing him of the said facts and requesting that the case be sent to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. It was dismissed on 21-7-2004 with the observation that the learned Magistrate has no powers to send the case on his own. Thereafter, a transfer application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, who dismissed the same on 23-8-2004 with reference to a judgment in the case of Humayun and others v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 989. Thereafter the petitioner filed a criminal revision against the said order of the Magistrate but the same was dismissed on 30-10-2004 on the same grounds.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the facts of the case which are apparent on the face of the record, it was not only appropriate but necessary that the main case which constituted the cross-version of the said F.I.R. And the said F.I.R. Case be tried and decided by the same Court to avoid conflicting judgments. Learned A.A.-G. Opines that normally such-like mattes are to be heard by the same Court.

3.I have examined the impugned orders. Now the learned Sessions Judge has primarily relied upon the said judgment in the case of Humayun and others. It is but apparent that although the learned Sessions Judge has taken the pains to reproduce some head notes in his judgment, dated 23-8- 2004 but obviously had not cared to read the same. Now the observations of this Court in the said judgment were that the rule of prudence requires that cross-case should be tried together by the same Court unless by such procedure any party is likely to be prejudiced. It was further advised that such cases arising out of the same occurrence should be tried by the same Court to avoid risk of conflicting judgments. It appears that in the said case no steps were taken for the transfer of the case pending in the Court of Magistrate to the Court of Session.

4.In the present case, I find that at the earliest occasion, the petitioner has been going from pillar to post for transfer of the case pending before the learned Magistrate to the Court of Session. This transfer application is accordingly allowed and the case F.I.R. No,51 dated 27-3-2004 under sections 337-A(ii)/337-L(ii)/ 337-F(i)/447/148/ 149, P.P.C. At Police Station Shah Kot, Tehsil and District Sahiwal, is withdrawn from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Chichawatni, and is made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, who is seized of the cross-version case to be tried along with the same. Case transferred.