FAZAL MUHAMMAD DOMKI vs LUTUFULLAH and anothers
This matter arises from a transfer application filed by the applicant/accused Fazal Muhammad Domki seeking the transfer of Sessions Case No. 320 of 2010 from the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. The core legal question concerns whether a criminal case should be transferred on the ground that the trial judge allegedly pressurized the accused to enter into a compromise and expressed an intention to convict upon failure. The Sindh High Court dismissed the transfer application, holding that the allegations were vague, general, lacked specific dates, and amounted merely to self-procured mistrust. The Court laid down the principle that a case cannot be transferred as a matter of routine or at a party's whim upon frivolous allegations, and that presiding officers must be equally protected from such applications to ensure transparent case disposal, especially when a matter has reached the stage of final arguments.
- Can a criminal case be transferred from one court to another on vague and general allegations of bias?
- Whether self-procured mistrust of an accused against a trial judge constitutes a valid ground for the transfer of a case?
- Should a criminal case be transferred when it is already fixed for final arguments?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---Through the instant transfer application, applicant/accused Fazal Muhammad Domki seeks transfer of Sessions Case No,320/ 2010, arising out Crime No,06/2010, registered at Police Station Amrote Sharif, under sections 302, 337-H(2), 148, 149, P.P.C., pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur.
2. Mr. Naushad Ali Tagar, learned advocate for the applicant/accused, mainly contended that learned trial Judge during the trial pressurized the accused to enter into compromise with the complainant party and expressed intention that in case of failure to arrive at compromise they would be convicted. It is further submitted that accused lack confidence in trial Judge. It is submitted that case may be transferred from the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge to some other Court.
3. Mr. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani, learned Asst. Prosecutor General, assisted by Mr. Faiz Muhammad Larik, learned advocate for the complainant, opposed the transfer application and argued that case is fixed for final arguments and stated that Presiding Officer enjoys good reputation.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that allegations made in the transfer application are vague and general in nature. Such type of the allegations cannot be the ground of transfer. From the contents of the transfer application, it appears that no specific date has been mentioned by the applicant/accused on which the Presiding Officer pressurized the accused to compromise the matter with complainant party. Justice requires that Presiding Officer should equally be protected from frivolous transfer applications in order to achieve transparent disposal of the case. Case is fixed for final arguments, as such, case cannot be transferred as a matter of routine or at the wish of any party unless application is fair and just.
Self-procured mistrust is no ground for transfer of the case, therefore, transfer application is without merit and is hereby 'dismissed. However, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, is directed to decide the case within one month after hearing the parties, strictly in accordance with law and report compliance.