Mehr NAZAR MUHAMMAD FATIANA vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which transferred two bail applications from an Additional Sessions Judge to the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, following criminal petitions filed under Sections 526 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner, an advocate facing criminal charges, argued that the High Court acted against judicial norms by failing to issue notice to him and by making disparaging remarks against the Additional Sessions Judge without providing that judge an opportunity to respond. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order transferring the bail matters was appropriate and did not prejudice the petitioner. Regarding the disparaging remarks, the Court ruled that the petitioner lacked the necessary locus standi to challenge remarks directed at a judicial officer. The Court affirmed that only the affected judicial officer possesses the standing to seek redress for such remarks. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, as the petitioner failed to establish a valid legal grievance.
- Does a petitioner have the locus standi to challenge disparaging remarks made by a High Court judge against a subordinate judicial officer?
- Can a High Court transfer bail matters from an Additional Sessions Judge to a Sessions Judge under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a judicial officer entitled to notice or an opportunity to comment before a High Court makes disparaging remarks against them in a judicial order?
- Section 526, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN OAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 12-7-1988, wherLhv two criminal petitions under sections 526, Cr.P.C. And 561-A, Cr.P.C. Were disposed of.
2. The petitioner, a practising Advocate, has been charged with various offences in the F.I.R. Nos. 331 of 1988 and 332 of 1988, lodged on 26-6-1988. He moved the Duty Magistrate for admitting him to bail on 26-6-1988. The learned Magistrate after calling for the report from the Ilaqa Police entrusted the bail applications to the Ilaqa Magistrate for consideration on 27-6-1988. It seems that the same day the petitioner submitted two applications before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, for admitting him to bail. These bail applications were admitted for regular hearing, notice was also issued and the record summoned for 30-6-1988. The petitioner was admitted to interim bail in both the cases. A report from the Magistrate concerned was also called for. This led the complainant to file two criminal petitions under sections 526, Cr.P.C. And 561-A, Cr.P.C. In the High Court. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner and the State through the impugned order allowed the petition under section 526, Cr.P.C. And transferred the two hail matters pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, for disposal in accordance with law within one week. He, however, disposed of the criminal petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. In terms of the order on criminal petition under section 526, Cr.P.C.
3. Mr. Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate, has been heard at some length. He submitted that in passing the impugned order the learned Single Judge has acted in flagrant disregard of the judicial norms as no notice was given to the petitioner and similarly no reason existed for passing scathing and damaging remarks against the learned Additional Sessions Judge without issuing him a notice or calling for his comments.
4. As the record stands, we are afraid none of the above contentions would prevail in that the learned Single Judge has only transferred the two bail matters from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of the Sessions Judge without making any prejudicial remarks against the petitioner. True that disparaging remark has been passed in this case by the learned Judge of the High Court without calling for the comments from the Additional Sessions Judge but then the petitioner has no locus standi to take up the cause of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is only he, that is, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who can seek his redress as provided for under the law if so advised.
5. The petition is thus dismissed.