KHUDA BAKHSH vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the transfer of a criminal case pending before a Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner sought the transfer on grounds of alleged bias, asserting that the complainant was related to the trial Magistrate and that the Magistrate's conduct caused apprehension that the case would not be decided impartially. The High Court rejected the application because the allegations were routinely made and unsupported by an affidavit from the counsel representing the petitioner before the trial court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's order, finding no infirmity in the exercise of its discretion on merits, and noted that the petitioner had lost contact with his counsel, leaving the current status of the trial unknown. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Can a criminal case be transferred under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on general allegations of bias without supporting material such as an affidavit from the trial counsel?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's discretionary refusal to transfer a criminal case when valid and sound reasons are provided by the High Court?
- Is an unsubstantiated claim of relationship between the complainant and the trial Magistrate sufficient ground to warrant the transfer of a criminal trial?
- Section 526, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 29-1-1994 dismissing the petitioner's application under section 526, Cr.P.C. For transfer of the case titled "State v. Khuda Bukhsh" from the Court of Muhammad Munir Waran, Judicial Magistrate, Bahawalpur.
2. It was alleged by the petitioner in the transfer application that the complainant of the case was related to the trial Magistrate whose behaviour did not inspire confidence in the mind of the petitioner. He, therefore, apprehended that the Magistrate was not likely to decide the case fairly and impartially. Learned Judge in the High Court was not persuaded to accept the allegations made by the petitioner as, in his view, "The allegations in this application, have been levelled in a usual manner. No affidavit of the learned lawyer who has been conducting the case of the applicant before the Judicial Magistrate, has been attached with this application".
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner met him last in June, 1994 and thereafter there has been no contact between them. He is, therefore, not in a position to state whether the case against the petitioner has since been decided or is still pending or even the Magistrate may have been transferred. Even on merits, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The learned Judge of the High Court has refused to exercise his discretion for good reasons. No case is. Therefore, made out for interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed and the leave sought is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Noor Ejaz Chaudhry & others vs Maheen Zafar & others 2017 P Cr. L J 1407, 2017 IHC 22