GHULAM MUSTAFA alias KHAWAND BUX vs PINYAL and others
This matter concerns a criminal transfer application filed by the applicant seeking the transfer of a Sessions Case from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero, to another court of competent jurisdiction in Larkana. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to seek the transfer of the case for a third time on grounds previously agitated and rejected, and whether the application complied with mandatory procedural requirements. The Court held that the application was not maintainable, as it was the third attempt on the same subject matter without fresh grounds, and the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements under the law. The Court dismissed the application, characterizing it as frivolous and vexatious. The key principle laid down is that repeated transfer applications based on identical, previously rejected grounds are not maintainable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that failure to provide the mandatory 24-hour written notice of a transfer application, as required by statute, warrants the dismissal of the application and the imposition of compensatory costs upon the applicant for filing frivolous or vexatious litigation.
- Is a third transfer application maintainable when it relies on the same grounds as two previously dismissed applications?
- What are the consequences of failing to provide the mandatory 24-hour written notice for a criminal transfer application?
- Can a court impose compensatory costs on an applicant for filing a frivolous or vexatious transfer application?
- How is the payment of compensation for a frivolous transfer application enforced in case of default?
- Section 526(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 526(6-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 68, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 69, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' By this application, applicant seeks transfer of Sessions Case No,333 of 1993 regarding State v.
Pinyal and others from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Larkana.
2. At the very outset learned A.A.-G. Has pointed out that this being third application on same subject-matter, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
3. I have gone through the record and have found that applicant had firstly filed Transfer Application No,6 of 1998 which was withdrawn by his counsel Mr. Rajib All Tunio on 3-4-1998.
Applicant was allowed to repeat such application only on some fresh grounds. He did not keep silent but preferred another Criminal Transfer Application No,15 of 1998 which was dismissed on 18- 8-1998 by this Court and prayer was declined. Again on 22-8-1998 applicant preferred third Application No,17 of 1998 on the same grounds as agitated by him in the earlier two applications.
The only ground urged in the above-referred applications was that it was not convenient to the complainant and his witnesses to attend the abovementioned Court. This admittedly is a frivolous ground without any findings. Irrespective of above, the mandatory provision as laid down under subsection (6) of section 526, Cr.P.C. Of giving notice in writing of filing of such application together with copies of the grounds at least 24 hours prior to the hearing of such application has not been complied with in this case. As such, this is a tit case where provisions of section 6-A of the above- referred section would be attracted whereby the practice of tiling of frivolous or vexatious transfer applications have been discouraged and applicants can be penalized to pay compensation not exceeding Rs,500 to the other party who had opposed the application.
4. While dismissing the above application, the applicant is directed to pay compensation of Rs,400 to the respondents within a period of one month from the order.
5. In case of default of payment of abovesaid compensation within above-mentioned period, the same shall be recovered as an arrears of land revenue. In case such recovery is not made, applicant shall suffer simple imprisonment for thirty days.
6. The provisions of sections 68 and 69, P.P.C. Would also be applicable in this case whereby the imprisonment would terminate on payment of fine or would terminate on payment of proportional part of fine, whenever paid during the subsistence period of sentence.
Cited by 2 cases
- MURAD GUL vs THE STATE through AdvocateGeneral Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 3 others 2013 PLD Peshawar 58
- GHULAM SHABIR and 2 others vs NAWAB SHAH and another 2001 P Cr. L J 2066