1998 P Cr (PLP)

This petition is moved for the transfer of a case F. I. R. No. 137 of 1996 dated 30-7-1996 registered under section 302, P.P.C. read with section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The case is now pending trial in the Court of Rana Baqir Ali, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad.

2. It is contended in the petition that the accused namely Qazi Muhammad Khurshid Anjum i.e. respondent No.2 is propagating that he will earn a favourable decision from the Court concerned. This propagation has allegedly raised apprehension in the mind of the Complainant, whose son was murdered, that he would not get fair trial from the Court concerned.

3. The comments were called from the learned trial Judge who denied that he had knowledge of any such propagation and that he had any link with the aforesaid accused/respondent. On the contrary, the aforesaid accused applied for bail but his petition was dismissed which fact is also conceded by the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner. The learned trial Judge also pointed out that the case was fixed for hearing after its entrustment on 7-5-1997 and was adjourned sine die. The trial, however, opened on 30-7-1997 and the accused was summoned for the said date but due to the negligence of the Ahmad of the Court, notice could not be issued for the aforesaid ate for the production of the accused in Court. Thereafter, the matter could not proceed further due to summer vacations and the case was accordingly adjourned to 19-9-1997.

4. It follows from the above that the case is at trial stage and the presence of the accused could not be procured because the Ahmad concerned did not issue notice for his appearance on the date fixed in the case. The learned trial Judge has already asked for explanation of the defaulting official which of course, shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

5. In the end, the learned trial Judge stated that he has no objection if the case is transferred to any other Court and that any other order passed by the High Court shall be strictly followed by him.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant is, in fact, aggrieved of the delay in the disposal of the case. In this connection, he has contended that there is rush of work in the Court of learned trial Court, therefore, it would be better if the case is withdrawn from that Court and transferred to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad, for quick disposal. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has no grievance against the conduct of the learned trial Judge except that the matter may be decided quickly.

7. I have gone through the foregoing facts and find that since the case has already been fixed for trial and the last date in the case is stated to have been fixed for 10-10-1997, but no progress could be made on account of pendency of this petition. Since the main grievance of the petitioner/complainant is that the case would not be decided quickly by the learned trial Judge on account of rush of work, therefore, there appears to be no ground for the transfer of the case. The petition is accordingly dismissed with the direction that the trial shall be proceeded expeditiously and concluded within three months from the receipt of this order by the trial Court.

8. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court and got acknowledged. L.H.Q./T-29/L Petition dismissed