SHAH MURAD BROHI vs BASHIR AHMED and 2 others
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the complainant seeking the transfer of a sessions case from the Court of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, to another court of competent jurisdiction. The primary ground for the request was that the presiding officer's position in the Vth Additional Sessions Court had been vacant for approximately one year, causing a significant delay in the trial proceedings. The core legal question was whether the transfer of the case was warranted in the interest of justice and to ensure the expeditious disposal of an old criminal matter. The Court, noting that the case had been pending since 2003 with minimal progress, held that the transfer was necessary to comply with the National Judicial Policy. Consequently, the Court ordered the withdrawal of the case from the Vth Additional Sessions Judge and its transfer to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. The holding emphasizes the judiciary's mandate to ensure the expeditious conclusion of trials, authorizing the transferee court to utilize coercive processes if necessary to secure the attendance of prosecution witnesses.
- Can a criminal case be transferred from a court where the presiding officer's position has remained vacant for an extended period?
- Does the National Judicial Policy mandate the expeditious disposal of long-pending criminal cases?
- Is a court empowered to order the use of coercive processes to secure the attendance of prosecution witnesses in a transferred case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through this application complainant/ applicant Shah Murad Brohi seeks transfer of the sessions Case No,229/of 2003 re: Bashir Ahmed and others v. The State based on Crime No,32/2003 of Police Station Hyderi, for offences under sections 302, 34, P.P.C. From the file of Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana to any other Court having jurisdiction only on the ground that the A Court is lying vacant since last one year. . The learned State Counsel raises no objection. The respondent No,3 also rises no objection.
2. ' I have heard counsel for the applicant, the State Counsel and the respondent No,3 in person and have gone through the material placed before the Court in connected Cr1. Miscellaneous Application No,7 of 2009 re: Shah Murad v. The State, which has been decided by this Court today. I find that amended charge was framed on 24-2-2005 and thereafter only two prosecution witnesses namely Tapedar and complainant Shah Murad were examined on 12-2-2006 and 16-6- 2006 respectively. Thereafter, there is no progress of the trial. Accordingly, the above Sessions Case is hereby withdrawn from the file the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana and is made over to the learned Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. This is an old case pertaining to the year 2003 and it needs to be disposed of expeditiously in view of the National judicial policy.
3. The learned Court of Had Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana is directed to examine all the remaining prosecution witnesses as early as possible and to conclude the trial expeditiously by procuring the attendance of the said prosecution witnesses even through coercive process, if needed. Learned advocate for complainant undertakes to produce all the prosecution witnesses under the control of complainant on the next date of hearing. With the above observation, this application is allowed.