2014 PLP 2282 (YLR)
FAZAL MUHAMMAD DOMKI — Petitioner Versus LUTUFULLAH and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 2282 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | Naimatullah Phulpoto, J |
| Parties | FAZAL MUHAMMAD DOMKI — Petitioner Versus LUTUFULLAH and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 2282 (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 2014 PLP 2282 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Naimatullah Phulpoto, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 2282 (YLR) (FAZAL MUHAMMAD DOMKI — Petitioner Versus LUTUFULLAH and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imtiaz Ali Jalbani, Assistant Prosecutor General for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th April, 2014.
- 2. Mr. Naushad Ali Tagar, learned advocate for the applicant/accused, mainly contended that learned trial Judge during the trial pressurized the accused to enter into compromise with the complainant party and expressed intention that in case of failure to arrive at compromise they would be convicted. It is further submitted that accused lack confidence in trial Judge. It is submitted that case may be transferred from the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge to some other Court.
- 3. Mr. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani, learned Asst. Prosecutor General, assisted by Mr. Faiz Muhammad Larik, learned advocate for the complainant, opposed the transfer application and argued that case is fixed for final arguments and stated that Presiding Officer enjoys good reputation.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 526
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 337-H(2), 148 & 149
Qatl-e-amd, rash or negligent act, rioting, common object
Application for transfer of case on the ground of lack of confidence in the trial Judge
Allegations made in the transfer application were vague and general in nature
Such type of allegations, could not be the ground of transfer
No specific date had been mentioned by the applicant/accused on which the Presiding Officer pressurized accused to compromise the matter with complainant
Justice required that Presiding Officer should equally be protected from frivolous transfer application in order to achieve transparent disposal of the case
Case being fixed for final arguments, could not be transferred as a matter of routine, or at the wish of any party, unless ground was fair and just
Self-procured mistrust, was no ground for transfer of the case
Transfer application being without merit, was dismissed, in circumstances. Naushad Ali Tagar for Applicant. Faiz Muhammad Larik for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.
Through the instant transfer application, applicant/accused Fazal Muhammad Domki seeks transfer of Sessions Case No.320/ 2010, arising out Crime No.06/2010, registered at Police Station Amrote Sharif, under sections 302, 337-H(2), 148, 149, P.P.C., pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur.
2. Mr. Naushad Ali Tagar, learned advocate for the applicant/accused, mainly contended that learned trial Judge during the trial pressurized the accused to enter into compromise with the complainant party and expressed intention that in case of failure to arrive at compromise they would be convicted. It is further submitted that accused lack confidence in trial Judge. It is submitted that case may be transferred from the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge to some other Court.
3. Mr. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani, learned Asst. Prosecutor General, assisted by Mr. Faiz Muhammad Larik, learned advocate for the complainant, opposed the transfer application and argued that case is fixed for final arguments and stated that Presiding Officer enjoys good reputation.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that allegations made in the transfer application are vague and general in nature. Such type of the allegations cannot be the ground of transfer. From the contents of the transfer application, it appears that no specific date has been mentioned by the applicant/accused on which the Presiding Officer pressurized the accused to compromise the matter with complainant party. Justice requires that Presiding Officer should equally be protected from frivolous transfer applications in order to achieve transparent disposal of the case. Case is fixed for final arguments, as such, case cannot be transferred as a matter of routine or at the wish of any party unless application is fair and just. Self-procured mistrust is no ground for transfer of the case, therefore, transfer application is without merit and is hereby dismissed. However, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, is directed to decide the case within one month after hearing the parties, strictly in accordance with law and report compliance. HBT/F-10/Sindh Application dismissed.