2018 PLP 1711 (YLR)
KHALILUR REHMAN — Applicant Versus 2nd ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MIRPURKHAS and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 1711 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, J |
| Parties | KHALILUR REHMAN — Applicant Versus 2nd ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MIRPURKHAS and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 1711 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 1711 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) bench comprising: Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 1711 (YLR) (KHALILUR REHMAN — Applicant Versus 2nd ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MIRPURKHAS and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yousuf Leghari for Respondent No.2.
- 3. Learned advocate for respondent No.2, placing on record objections, submits that the applicant Khalil-ur-Rehman and his co-accused in Sessions Case No.108 / 2016, by seeking adjournments time and again, has been unnecessarily delaying the proceedings of the aforesaid Sessions Cases before the trial Court at Mirpurkhas. He, therefore, prays that the application may be dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 526
Transfer of sessions cases were sought from place "M" to place "T" on the ground that both the parties hailed from place "T" and the incident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of court at place "T"
Record transpired that earlier the sessions cases were withdrawn from the court at place "T" and were transferred to the court at place "M"
Admittedly, said orders had not been called in question by the applicant
No progress in the cases before the transferee Trial Court at place "M" had been made due to delay caused by both the parties by seeking adjournments on one pretext or the other
Record reflected that applicant party was instrumental in delay of the trial before the court at place "M"
Circumstances established that no case for re-transfer of the cases from the court at place "M" to the court at place "T" had been made out and the applicant by filing the present application had made an attempt to hamper the proceedings of the cases
Application for re-transfer of cases was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Akhtar Bhatti for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.
Through this application, applicant Khalil-ur-Rehman patently seeks re-transfer of Sessions Case No. 108/2016 (Old No.145/ 2012) re-State v. Khalil-ur-Rehman @ Bholo and others culminated from FIR No. 256/2012, registered at Police Station Tando Allahyar and Sessions Case No.109 / 2016 (Old No.77 / 2013) re-State v. Sher Muhammad and others, culminated from Crime No. 258/2012, registered at Police Station Tando Allahyar, from the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Allahyar, which were earlier transferred to the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Allahyar vide an exhaustive order dated 09.05.2016, passed in Criminal Transfer Application No.S-70 of 2015, filed as Annexure-B/1, available at pages 33-38.
2. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that both the parties are hailing from Tando Allahyar; and, the incident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Court at Tando Allahyar. He, therefore, prays that the aforementioned Sessions Cases may be transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Allahyar.
3. Learned advocate for respondent No.2, placing on record objections, submits that the applicant Khalil-ur-Rehman and his co-accused in Sessions Case No.108 / 2016, by seeking adjournments time and again, has been unnecessarily delaying the proceedings of the aforesaid Sessions Cases before the trial Court at Mirpurkhas. He, therefore, prays that the application may be dismissed.
4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, submits that this application is meritless, which may be dismissed.
5. From the perusal of the record, it would be seen that earlier aforementioned Sessions Cases were withdrawn from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Allahyar and were transferred to the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas after considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the learned A.P.G. Sindh vide an exhaustive order dated 09.05.2016, including the contentions, having been raised now by the learned counsel for the applicant and admittedly that order has not been called in question by the applicant; no progress in the cases before the transferee trial Court at Mirpurkhas has been made so far due to delay caused by both the parties by seeking adjournments on one or the other pretext, as is reflected from the comments, having been furnished by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas; and, thus, the applicant party itself also is instrumental in delay of the trial of the aforementioned cases before the trial Court at Mirpurkhas and instead of proceedings with the cases before the trial Court, the applicant has moved this application. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that no case for re-transfer of the aforementioned cases from the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Allahyar has been made out and the applicant by filing the instant application has made an attempt to hamper the proceedings of the aforesaid cases. Accordingly, the application in hand, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. JK/K-22/Sindh Application dismissed.