MEVO vs SHABEER and 4 others
This criminal transfer application sought the transfer of a Sessions Case from the Court of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin, to another district. The applicant, the complainant in a murder and robbery case, alleged that the presiding judge had granted bail to the accused in a harsh manner, that the accused were notorious criminals, and that they were threatening the complainant and witnesses. The applicant argued that these factors necessitated a transfer to ensure a fair trial. The Court examined the application and found the allegations against the presiding judge to be vague, general, and unsupported by evidence. Relying on the principle that justice must not only be done but appear to be done, the Court emphasized that presiding officers must be protected from frivolous transfer applications based on unfounded or conjectural apprehensions. The Court held that transfer applications cannot be granted on the basis of mere suppositions and that the applicant failed to provide specific evidence regarding the alleged threats. Consequently, the Court dismissed the transfer application, maintaining the case in its original jurisdiction.
- Can a criminal case be transferred from one court to another based on vague and general allegations of bias?
- Is a transfer application maintainable when the allegations of threats by the accused are unsubstantiated by evidence?
- Should a court transfer a case merely because the complainant expresses a subjective apprehension of injustice?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---
1. Granted.
2. Overruled.
3. Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.
4. Through this criminal transfer application the applicant has prayed that this honourable Court may be pleased to transfer the Sessions Case No.53/2017 (Re: Roopo and others v. The State) in Crime No.03/2017, under sections 302, 394, 34, P.P.C. of Police Station Kario Ghanwar from the Court of learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin to Sessions Judge Tando Muhammad Khan or Sessions Judge, Hyderabad on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge Badin in very harsh manner granted bail to accused persons who are notorious criminals and involved in dozen of the cases of robbery and dacoity and they are habitual robbers; that the applicant is very poor person and belongs to the Hindu Community while the respondents Nos.1 to 4 are issuing threats while visiting the Courts in relation of the evidence; that the leaned Sessions Judge Badin after granting the bail, transferred the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge Badin for trial; that the respondents Nos.1 to 4 after release on bail, misused the concession of bail and threatened the complainant and his witnesses and they are interfering in the trial hence their bail is liable to be cancelled.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has been heard. During course of the arguments he has reiterated the same facts and grounds as mentioned in the transfer application.
I have carefully examined the contents of the transfer application and documents annexed thereto. I find that the allegations made in the A application are vague and general in nature and such type of allegation cannot be made the ground of transfer. I have gone through the case of Shah Jehan v. Special Judge Anti-Corruption and others reported as (1992 PCr.LJ 1982). In my view, while transferring the matter from one court to another, justice should not only be done but should appear to have been done. In such circumstances the 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 overpower 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 the basis of suppositions, unfounded and conjectural apprehensions. Besides this case is at initial stage.
Both parties are resident of same district. No evidence is on record that on which date and time and before whom the accused have issued threats to applicant.
In view of the above circumstances, I am of the view that vague and unfounded allegations have been leveled against the presiding officer which cannot be made basis of transfer of case.
Accordingly, transfer application stands dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Abdul Razzaq vs The State and 2 others 2022 PCRLJ 741