ABDUL LATIF vs THE STATE And 7 Other
The petitioner sought the transfer of a criminal case pending against him under Sections 376, 368, 346, and 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 from the court of a Magistrate in Gujranwala. The transfer application, filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was based on the allegation that the trial Magistrate was the nephew of one Mirza Azam Beg, against whom the petitioner had previously testified. The High Court dismissed the transfer application, finding the allegations unsubstantiated. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court observed that if the petitioner could prove he had indeed testified against the Magistrate's uncle, it would create a reasonable apprehension in the petitioner's mind regarding the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the current petition but granted the petitioner liberty to renew the transfer application before the High Court, provided he submits a certified copy of his previous statement against the Magistrate's relative to substantiate his claim of bias.
- Does a familial relationship between a trial Magistrate and a person against whom the accused has testified constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of a case?
- Can a transfer application be renewed before the High Court if new evidence substantiating the grounds for transfer is produced?
- What is the standard for determining whether a reasonable apprehension of bias exists in a criminal trial?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 368, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 346, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 363, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 526, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 5, Anti-Corruption Act 1947
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-A case under section 376/368, 346/363, P. P. C. Is pending against .The petitioner in the Court of Qazi Muhammad Afzal, Magistrate, Gujranwala. An application was made by him in the High Court under section 526, Cr. P. C. For transfer of the case from the Court of Nazi Muhammad Afzal to some other Court, on various grounds; including the allegation that he had appeared as a witness against Mirza Azam Beg, an ex-Magistrate, who is the uncle of the trial Magistrate. A report was called from the learned trial Magistrate by the High Court, in which it was admitted by, him that Mirza Azam Beg 'vas 'his uncle, but he denied knowledge about the deposition of the petitioner against his uncle in any case. A learned Single Judge in the High Court has dismissed the transfer application on' the ground that the allegations in the transfer petition were' not substantiated by any evidence.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued by reference to the copy of F. I. R. No. 22 of Police Station, Hafizabad, that a case was registered against Mirza Azam Beg under section 5 of the Anti- Corruption Act, and in the resulting challan, the name of the petitioner appears as one of the prosecution witnesses. This does not show that the petitioner has given any evidence against Mirza Azam Beg. But the learned counsel states that he can produce a certified copy of the statement of the petitioner made in the case against Mirza Azam Beg.
3. If it is correct that the petitioner had actually given a state went in a criminal case against the uncle of the trial Magistrate that would certainly raise a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he cannot have a fair trial at the hands of the trial Magistrate, who is the nephew of the aforesaid Mirza Azam Beg. We have, therefore, directed that the petitioner should renew his application for transfer before the High Court after attaching with it a certified copy of the statement which he had made against Mirza Azam Beg. With this direction, this petition is dismissed.