P L D 1969 Lahore 430 (PLP)

This .is an application for the transfer of a criminal case " State v. Rustam Khan and others" under section 302/34, P. P. C. from the Court of Malik Gulbaz Khan, Sessions Judge, Lyallpur. The grounds on which the transfer is sought are as follows : ‑ (a) That the petitioner, his uncle Hafizullah and other family :members are supporters of Mehr Khuda Dad, Member National Assembly and Malik Sarfraz Khan, Advocate, a former Member Provincial Assembly and at present Chairman :Union Council Khabeki, District Sargodha, and that Mehr Khuda Dad Khan, M. N. A. and Malik Sarfraz Khan, Advocate, are political opponents of Malik Gulbaz Khan and this family, (b) that Malik Gulbaz Khan, unsuccessfully contested for ,the Provincial seat in the year 1951, and the candidate of the petitioner's party was elected. Again Malik Gulbaz Khan .contested for the Chairmanship of Town Committee Jauharabad and was defeated by the nominee of Mehr Khuda Dad Lak and klalik Sarfraz Khan, Advocate, supporters of the petitioner. In the year 1962, Malik Gulbaz Khan wanted to contest for a seat in the Provincial Assembly, but finding himself to be a weak candidate against Malik Sarfraz Khan he decided not to contest, (c) that Malik Shahbaz. Khan, Advocate, brother of Malik ,Gulbaz Khan contested for election of the District Council and was defeated by the petitioner's party. In support of these allegations the petitioner put in his sworn statement and the affidavits of Mehr Khuda Dad Khan Lak, M. N. A. Sargodha and Malik Sarfraz Khan, Advocate,. Sargodha. Copies of the affidavits and the transfer application. were sent down to Malik Gulbaz Khan, Sessions Judge, Lyallpur,, for such remarks as he thought fit to make with reference to the allegations contained in the application and the affidavits. The learned Sessions Judge in his reports dated the 8th October 1968,. and 23rd of October 1968, has stated that he being a Government: servant is out of politics. He admitted that he contested Provin cial Assembly Election in the year 1951‑52 against Malik Fateh. Muhammad Tiwana and lost it. He also conceded that he lost election for the Chairmanship of Town Committee, Jauharabad, but his rival candidate was Ch. Abdus Sattar and he was not the nominee of Mehr Khuda Dad Lak and Malik Sarfraz. He denied that he was a candidate nor the election to the Provincial Assembly in the year 1962. He stated that he was not on speak ing terms with his brother for the last ten years. He also said that he is answerable for his deeds and misdeeds on the day of judgment before Almighty Allah and while sitting as a Judge he was capable of doing justice even to his bitter enemy and that he was not anxious to try this case, but if on this flimsy ground the, case is allowed to be transferred, not a single case would remain pending in his Court in the district of Lyallpur, but to whichever district he would be posted. As to the affidavits of Mehr Khud& Dad Khan Lak and Malik Sarfraz Khan, he stated as follows :‑ " . . . . that the affidavits of the Politicians, which easily available, should have no preference over the word of the Court. If they have, then the case may kindly be transferred from my Court."

2. To begin with I must say that it is regrettable that the learned Sessions Judge has departed from healthy tradition in answering the allegations made in the affidavits; not only that, in, answering the allegations he had displayed loss of temper. The words to which I take exception are as under :‑ "I am not anxious to try this case, but if on this flimsy ground, the case is allowed to be transferred, I assure you sir that not even a single case will remain pending in my Court, not only in this district, but to whichever district, I am posted . . . . . I have nothing to add except that the affidavits of the: Politicians, which are easily available, should have no, preference over the word of the Court. If they have, then the: case may kindly be transferred from my Court."

3. The reports of the learned Sessions Judge show peevishness. This Court expects of the judicial officers, to answering allega tions in affidavits made in transfer applications, to use dignified, and proper Language. Their answers should not show anger nor they should indulge in cheap rhetoric. The learned Sessions Judge in this particular case chose not to answer the allegations. made in the affidavits and contented himself to say that the; affidavits of the politicians were easily available and should have no preference over his word. The remarks of the learned Sessions Judge are too general and sweeping in nature. In every democratic country politicians are important as a class and people repose confidence in them by electing them to legislations which in turn make laws of a country. I must say that without politicians there can be no democratic country and it is not possible for me to subscribe to the view of the learned Sessions Judge who wants to condemn the politicians as a class. I regret that the learned Sessions Judge has used such a language which is calculated to suggest that the politicians should not be believed. I sincerely wish that the learned Sessions Judge should not have made the remarks detailed above.

4. The accepted principle of the system of administration of justice is that it must not only be done but must seem to be done. It is in consonance with this principle that it sometimes becomes imperative for this Court to order transfer of cases from one subordinate Court to another. In answering the allega tions made in the transfer applications and affidavits the subordinate Courts of law ought not to display loss of temper and peevishness. It is obligatory for them to accept or deny the allegations made against them. It is not desirable that, in their answers, they should enter into arguments with litigants who may have deposed to facts which they deny to have occurred. Such like remarks as made by the learned Sessions Judge, lead to an apprehension in the mind of the applicant that the transfer application made by him has annoyed the Judge and that because of it he will not have a fair and impartial trial before him. Had the learned Sessions Judge contented himself only with answering the allegations that had been made against him to the affidavits, I would have certainly rejected the application for transfer. !n face of the remarks made in the reports by the learned Sessions Judge, I deem it necessary to transfer this case from his Court to the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore at Sheikhupura, and I order accordingly. A. E. Case transferred.