MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN vs YOUSAF ARAB AND Other THE STATE
This matter concerns criminal petitions challenging an order passed by the Chief Justice of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court, which transferred two criminal cases from a Magistrate in Thatta to a Magistrate in Karachi. The petitioner argued that the transferee Magistrate lacked jurisdiction because certain alleged offences were triable only by a Court of Session or a Magistrate exercising enhanced powers under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court's transfer order was legally flawed due to the transferee court's alleged lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the High Court's order was legally sound. The Court reasoned that if a trial Magistrate concludes they lack jurisdiction over specific offences, they possess the authority to commit those cases to the Court of Session. Furthermore, the Court established that where cases are to be tried together, there is no legal impediment to transferring both to the Court of Session, especially when the High Court determines that trial by ordinary Magistrates is not expedient.
- Can a Magistrate commit a case to the Court of Session if they determine they lack jurisdiction over the alleged offences?
- Is there a legal bar to transferring multiple cases to the Court of Session if one of them requires such committal?
- Does the High Court have the authority to transfer cases away from ordinary Magistrates when it deems trial by them inexpedient?
- Section 30, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This order will dispose of Criminal Petitions bearing Nos. K-32 and K-33 of 1972.
2. By an elaborate order made on the 18th of September 1972, the learned Chief JUStiC:e of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court had transferred two criminal cases, pending between the parties, from the Court of Civil Judge and Magistrate of the 1st Class at Thatta to the Court of Mr. Khadim Hussain Junejo, Civil Judge and F. C M. At Karachi. Earlier, both these cases had been transferred by the learned Chief Justice, by an order made on the 5th of November 1971, from the Courts of two Magistrates at Karachi to the Court of the Civil Judge and F. C. M. At Thatta.
3. As no appreciable progress was made in either of these two cases in the Court of the Civil Judge and F. C. M. Thatta, the petitioner again moved the High Court for the transfer of the cases to the original side of that Court. This prayer was, however, not accepted, but instead transfer was ordered to the Court of Mr. Khadim Hussain Junejo, as already stated.
4. On the transfer of Mr. Junejo from Karachi, both the cases were entrusted to Mr. Inayatullah Ansari, Civil Judge If Class and Magistrate of the 1st Class at Karachi.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Shahzad Jahangir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the learned Magistrate to whom y the cases now stand transferred under the orders of the High Court, _ has no jurisdiction in the matter, as some of the offences alleged against the respondents are triable either by a Court of Session or by a Magistrate exercising enhanced powers under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. After hearing the learned counsel, we are not at all persuaded that any justification is made out for our interference in the matter. The contention raised before us was rightly repelled by the learned Chief Justice by saying that if the trial Court came to the conclusion that it could not try the offences made out against the respondents, it could commit the cases to the Court of Session for trial. We see no illegality in this view of the High Court. If both the cases have to tried together, and one of them is being committed to the Court of Session for trial, there is no legal bar in the way of other case being also sent up for trial to the same Court. In the peculiar circumstances of these two cases, the learned Chief Justice had come to the conclusion that it was not expedient that these cases should be tried by the ordinary Magistrates working under the control of the District Magistrate of Karachi. In these circumstances, it was clearly not possible to entrust these cases to a Magistrate exercising enhanced powers under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in these petitions which accordingly fail and are hereby dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Dr. HASSAN AMIR SHAH vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary 2012 PLC (C.S.) 290
- NATIONAL DETERGENTS LIMITED vs MOD INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. 1993 MLD 590