ABDUL RAHEEM vs THE STATE
This application was filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the transfer of a criminal case pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar. The applicant, charged under Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance 1965, alleged that the trial judge exhibited harsh behavior, used abusive language, and improperly influenced the proceedings by meeting the complainant in chambers and dictating evidence. The presiding officer denied these allegations, characterizing them as fabricated and baseless. The Court examined the application and found the allegations vague, lacking specific dates, times, or corroborating affidavits from counsel. The Court held that while justice must appear to be done, judicial officers must also be protected from frivolous transfer applications based on conjectural or unfounded apprehensions. The Court emphasized that a balance must be struck to ensure cases are not transferred merely on the basis of suppositions. Consequently, finding no merit in the vague allegations, the High Court dismissed the transfer application, affirming that unsubstantiated claims of bias do not constitute sufficient grounds for transferring a case.
- Can a criminal case be transferred from a subordinate court based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations of bias against the presiding judge?
- Is it necessary for an applicant seeking transfer of a case to provide specific details, such as dates and times, regarding alleged misconduct by the trial judge?
- Should a presiding officer be protected from frivolous transfer applications to ensure transparent and even-handed justice?
- Section 526, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 13(d), Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---This order will dispose of application under section 526, Cr.P.C. Filed on behalf of the applicant who is booked in Crime. No,81 of 2011 Police Station Radhan under section 13(d) of Arms Ordinance, 1965 and is facing trial in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar for transfer of said case 'to some other Court having jurisdiction.
2. In the grounds it is stated that the behaviour of the learned Judge is too harsh towards the applicant and learned Judge always used abusive language against the applicant. The Judge called the complainant in his chamber, served him tea and himself guided and even dictated evidence. It is contended that due to above acts and behaviour of the trial. Judge the applicant has lost trust upon the trial Judge and sense of insecurity has been developed in his mind that he could not get justice at the hands of learned trial Judge.
3. The comments of the learned Presiding Officer have been called who has denied the allegations contending the same to be false, fabricated, concocted, self-engineered and without substance.
He further added that the R&Ps of the case were received in his Court on 17-11-2011 from the Sessions Judge, Dadu for disposal according to law and after codal formalities he has recorded statement of complainant and, one witness on 4-5-2012 in open court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken the same pleas in his arguments which are shqwn in the grounds of the transfer application mentioned above.
5. Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the transfer application contending that the grounds taken in the application are baseless. He contends that the Presiding Officer should be protected from frivolous transfer applications to achieve transparent justice. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the cases of Mian Muhammad Rafique Saigol v. BCCI and others (1996 CLC 13901 and Shah Jehan v. Special Judge Anti-corruption and others 1992 PCr.LJ 2033.
6. I have given careful consideration to the arguments and gone through the relevant papers and case-law. In the grounds of the transfer application, applicant has failed lo mention the date and time when Presiding Officer called the complainant who is A.S.-I. And served him tea in his chamber. So far as the ground A that the attitude of learned Judge is too harsh towards the applicants and used abusive language, is not supported by any affidavit of the Advocate for the accused. Even no date and time has been mentioned when the learned Presiding Officer used abusive language with the applicant.
7. After applying my mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the allegations made in this application are vague and general in nature and such type of allegations cannot be made the ground of transfer. This dictum is laid down in the case of Shah Jehan (Supra) relied upon by the learned State Counsel. While transferring the matter from court to another, justice should not only be done but should appear to have been done. In such circumstances it is held in a case of `Mian Muhammad Rafique Saigol (Supra) that justice, however, to be done without fear or favour, thus, Presiding Officer should equally be protected from frivolous transfer applications in order to achieve transparent even-handed justice so that one of the litigants should not be in a position to overawe the Presiding Officer Which might ultimately result in tilting scales of justice under fear and malignity. It is further held in the aforesaid case that, while exercising jurisdiction to transfer of cases from subordinate Courts, balance has to be struck in order to ensure that the cases were not transferred- merely on basis of suppositions, unfounded and conjectural apprehensions.
8. In view of the above circumstances. I am of the view that vague and unfounded allegations have been levelled against the Presiding Officer which cannot be made basis of transfer of case.
Accordingly, transfer application stands dismissed..