ALLAH WASAYA vs SARFRAZ HUSSAIN And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which rejected the petitioner's application to transfer a criminal trial pending under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 from the court of an Additional Sessions Judge in Multan. The petitioner, a complainant, sought the transfer on grounds that the trial record was not being maintained faithfully and that the presiding judge had improperly influenced the District Attorney to abandon certain witnesses, thereby creating an apprehension of an unfair trial. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the allegations regarding the maintenance of the record were raised for the first time in the transfer application. Furthermore, the Court held that the decision to produce or abandon witnesses lies within the discretion of the District Attorney, and such actions cannot be attributed to judicial influence without evidence. Finding the petitioner's apprehensions unjustified, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the grounds presented did not warrant the transfer of the proceedings.
- Can a criminal trial be transferred based on allegations of improper record-keeping raised for the first time in a transfer application?
- Does the decision of a District Attorney to abandon certain witnesses constitute evidence of judicial influence by the presiding judge?
- What is the standard for justifying the transfer of a criminal case based on an apprehension of an unfair trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner who is a complainant in a pending criminal case registered under section 302, P.P.C. Seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 28-6-1986 whereby his application seeking transfer of the case from the Court of Ch. Muhammad Aslam Khokhar, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, was rejected.
2. The occurrence relates to Muzaffargarh District. The trial is taking place at Multan as at the instance of the accused respondent and with the concurrence of the petitioner it was transferred to that district.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the record of the proceedings is not being prepared correctly and faithfully, that the Presiding Officer has influenced the District Attorney to give up a number of witnesses and the petitioner has reasonable apprehension that he will not receive a fair trial.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and find that the learned Judge in the High Court had called for a report from the Presiding Officer to satisfy himself about the correctness and the nature of the allegations. It is admitted that the grievance about the omissions or incorrect maintenance of record was for the first time voiced in the application for transfer and not earlier. As regards the other ground it is primarily for the District Attorney to decide what witnesses he will produce at the trial and if he takes a decision to give up certain witnesses it cannot be urged that he has acted under the influence/ direction of the Court. The apprehension of the petitioner does not appear to be justified. It is not a fit case for leave to appeal.