ASHIQ Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Hussain Haral Advocate expressed inability to proceed with the case. The learned trial Judge appointed some counsel at State expenses to proceed with the case. The said counsel cross‑examined two formal witnesses after examination‑in‑chief, whereafter an application for transfer was submitted which was dismissed by the learned trial Judge.

2. The comments of the learned trial Judge were called. It has been stated in the comments that the case was fixed for trial two months prior to 11‑5‑1991 (the date on which the petitioners had asked for adjourment so that the accused gets sufficient time to engage a counsel of their choice and make arrangements for his appearance. In spite of that they wanted adjourment or the pretext that they wanted their counsel from Sargodha to conduct case or their behalf. It does not appear from the petition and the comments that the local counsel was prepared to go ahead with the evidence of the forma witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has attached a letter issues by the Member, Inspection Team under direction of the Honourable Chief Justice that the trials should not be frequently adjourned and should be proceeded on day to day basis. On account of this background the learned trial Judge had refused to grant adjourment while nine P.Ws. were present.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of non cooperative attitude of the trial Judge genuine apprehensions have arisen in the minds of the petitioners that they will not get a fair trial at the hands of the Presiding Officer. Learned counsel contended that in such a situation the only answer is to withdraw the case from this Court and entrusted it to some other Court. Reliance has been placed on Muhammad Nawaz v. Ghulam Kadir and 3 others reported as P L D 1973 SC 327.

4. I have gone through the comments, considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the cited judgment.

5. There is no denying the fact that the case was fixed for evidence two months prior to 11‑5‑1991. The accused thus had ample opportunity to engage a counsel of their choice in time so that he was available to conduct the trial on their behalf. They were represented by two Advocates. In spite of that their insistence for adjournment does not appear to be well‑intentioned, self procured mistrust and expression of no confidence in the Court cannot be encouraged to transfer the cases from the Courts of the trial Judges particularly so where no allegation of partisanship for reasons of any type of adverse interest is alleged/proved. In this case (there is no allegation that the learned trial Judge had any bias against the petitioners or had any soft corner for any reason for the complainant party). The authority cited contains facts of entirely different magnitude. The same is not helpful for the case in hand. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, I would like to observe that the learned trial Judge should accommodate as far as possible the counsel engaged by the accused‑petitioners and not proceed with the trial with the help of the counsel appointed at State expenses.

N.H.Q./A‑10/L Petition dismissed.