MUHAMMAD NISAR Versus THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS Muhammad Nisar , M. A .I . Qarni
1. This is an application for transfer of case State v. Hubdar and others under section 17 (3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur.
2. The applicant Mohammad Nisar is complainant in the above case and he seeks transfer of the above case on the ground that he is a Government servant and is serving as Sepoy is Custom House. Being a Government servant it is difficult for him to go from Karachi to Sukkur to attend the Court for the purpose of giving evidence. That the accused have issued threats of dire consequences through some influential persons and therefore he apprehends that if he goes to Sukkur his life will be dangered.
3. Mr. M. A .I. Qarni, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the transfer of the case on the ground that the respondents are in jail, and that other witnesses belonged to Sukkur side. That the applicant can conveniently attend the Court at Sukkur.
4. I have considered the contentions of the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the State. The respondents are admittedly in custody. The name of the person through whom the applicant has been threatened has not been disclosed in the transfer application as well as in the affidavit filed in support thereof. The other witnesses belonged to Sukkur side as stated by the learned counsel appearing for the State and it will be difficult and expensive for the other P.Ws. and the State to proceed with the case at Karachi, only for the sake of providing convenience to the complainant.
5. In view of the above circumstances I am of the considered view that there are no grounds for the transfer of the above case and the application is consequently dismissed.
6. However, I will direct the learned Sessions Judge that he should call the applicant for evidence only on the day on which he feels that the case will proceed, and that he should be examined on that day, so that further inconvenience to the complainant may be avoided. The learned Sessions Judge is further directed to call for the revolver from the applicant (which is a case property) only on the day on which he intends to examine the Mashir of recovery and the Investigating Officer.
7. S.G.D./M‑309/K Order accordingly.