KHAIR DIN vs The STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dismissing his criminal revision, which had challenged the refusal of lower courts to grant a de novo trial following the transfer of his cases between magistrates. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to a de novo trial upon the transfer of criminal cases from one magistrate to another under the relevant procedural law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there was no flaw in the impugned order of the High Court and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, finding no merit for interference. The key principle laid down is that the mere transfer of a criminal case to a different magistrate does not automatically warrant a de novo trial of the proceedings already conducted, unless justifiable grounds under the law are established.
- Is an accused entitled to a de novo trial as a matter of right upon the transfer of a criminal case to a different magistrate?
- Does the High Court's dismissal of a criminal revision regarding the refusal of a de novo trial warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Whether the transfer of criminal cases necessitates the recording of prosecution evidence afresh from the beginning?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 12-12-1984, dismissing his criminal revision.
2. The facts, briefly, are that on reports made by Mr. M.A. Lone, Khair Din petitioner was facing trial in 5 different criminal cases in the Court of Mr. Sardar Ali Gorsi, Magistrate Section 30, prosecution evidence was recorded in one of these and even the statements of the accused was recorded, when he made a transfer application for transfer of the case: The case has since been transferred to to different Courts and is now pending in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Zawar Ali, Magistrate Section 30. Before each Magistrate the petitioner applied for de novo trial but his applications were dismissed each the. On to occasions he also filed criminal revisions before the Additional Sessions Judge which were dismissed. On the third occasion he filed a criminal revision before the High Court which to was dismissed. A prayer was also made for re-calling Abdul Aziz C.W. For further cross-examination. This was, however, allowed by the High Court vide the impugned order.
3. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at length and gone through the impugned order.
After careful consideration of the matter we feel that there is no flaw in the impugn order of the High Court and does not merit interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.