2000 PLP 1067 (YLR)

This order will dispose of Transfer Applications Nos. 24 to 30 and 34 of 1999. One Muhammad Usman Farooqui is the applicant in all those matters, which are pending against him before Mr. Muhammad Afzal Khan, Senior Special Judge (Central 11), Karachi. It is alleged that the applicant, while performing official duties in various capacities, including Ex‑Chairman of Pakistan Steel Mills Karachi, during the years 1987 to 1996, amassed huge wealth to the tune of billions of rupees by looting and plundering national exchequer. Therefore, various cases were registered against him. Mr. I.A. Hashmi, learned counsel for the applicant, has pressed these applications on various grounds. Firstly, it is urged that bail to the applicant was granted on 6‑2‑1997 on medical ground, but after more than two years of grant of bail, it was cancelled without any justification. According to him, this raised a reasonable apprehension in the mind of applicant that he would not get justice in those matters, as learned trial Judge is favourably inclined towards prosecution and biased against him. In support of above contention, learned counsel relied upon the case reported as Muhammad Nawaz v. Ghulam Kadir and 3 others PLD 1973 SC

327. Ratio of above case is that if there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of a party of not getting justice due to the conduct of the Court, transfer of criminal case would be justified, but whether the apprehension is reasonable or not is to be decided in each case with reference to the incident and the surrounding circumstances. Mr. Sarwar Khan, A.A.‑G., states that bail to applicant was granted on medical ground only and that in view of subsequent report of the Medical Board, it transpired that the applicant was not entitled to bail on said ground, as such, the bail was cancelled, and the applicant being dissatisfied, has challenged said order before this Court, which is still pending for decision. He also argued that even if it is assumed that the cancellation of bail was not justified, still,, an illegal, erroneous, or improper order does not per se disclose any prejudice or bias in the mind of the Court. He submitted that something more than a mere wrong order is required to justify transfer. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the case reported as Gulzar Ahmad and others v. The State, 1994 PCr.LJ

634. Mere fact that bail of applicant was cancelled this by itself is not sufficient for transfer of the case nor every incident which the applicant considers as unfair would justify transfer of the case. Normally a Senior Judicial Officer could not be disbelieved simply because a person was/is not satisfied with a Judicial Order passed by him. The plea that order of cancellation of bail was mala fide is without any substance. Next, learned counsel argued that applicant was granted 'B' Class during the proceedings of the case, but later on said facility was withdrawn. According to learned counsel, this unequivocally postulates that learned trial Judge is extremely biased against the applicant. Mr. Sarwar Khan submits that applicant right from the very beginning is only interested in prolonging the proceedings and does not want disposal of these cases on merits. He also states that more often than not the applicant used to interrupt the proceedings of the Court, particularly when the evidence of a witness was being recorded to unnervo and unsettle him and also not hesitated in passing ugly remarks loudly against the prosecutor and the police officials. He also argued that facility was withdrawn to admonish him to be serious during the trial and for mending his ways. He submitted that the applicant realized lapses on his part and tendered unconditional written apology before the Court with an undertaking to maintain decoram in the Court. Written apology of the applicant is very significant. By itself it is irrefutable testimony of the misbehaviour of the applicant in the Court. He cannot take advantage of his own misdeeds. It is noted that after the applicant improved his behaviour, 'B' Class was restored to him. This could also not be a valid ground for transfer of the cases. Mr. I.A. Hashmi also argued that learned Trial Judge was showing undue haste for disposal of those cases. It is noted that learned trial Judge had made a reference to this Court for seeking guidance in respect of some orders passed by this Court. In the letter, dated 6‑3‑1999 of the Trial Court, it was mentioned that Mr. M.A. Kazi, the then counsel of the applicant, had already sought 9 adjournments in those matters on various grounds. The Reference, being No. l of 1999, was disposed of by this Court on 17‑3‑1999 with an observation that. "It appears that on flimsy grounds, efforts are being made to prolong the matters". Direction was given in said reference for disposal of the matters expeditiously according to law. Under the circumstances, learned trial Judge was justified to dispose of the matter as early as possible. Even otherwise, it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the matters expeditiously. Learned counsel for the applicant has not said a single word about the integrity of trial Judge. On this score, he seems to be fully satisfied. I had asked him as to what could be, in his view, the reason for learned trial Judge to unnecessarily harm the applicant, he replied that presumably the satisfaction of his ego. On the basis of more speculations and unfounded presumptions those cases cannot be transferred. Accordingly, all the transfer applications are dismissed. Trial Court is directed to dispose of those cases, on merits, expeditiously and submit the progress report fortnightly to the MIT of this Court. H.B.T./M‑31/K Transfer application dismissed.