1989SCMR71 (PLP)

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner together with another person is being tried by the Sessions Judge at Okara on a charge under section 302, read accused caused the death of a woman by administering poison. The case was registered at Police Station Chichawatni of District Sahiwal, but on the request of the petitioner venue of the trial was moved to the Court of Sessions at Okara. He now seeks the transfer of the case to some other Court. His prayer in this regard has been rejected by the High Court

2. The petitioner alleges that the learned Sessions Judge‑has conducted himself in a manner that he has lost faith in his impartiality. To begin with his grievance is that he was made to sign documents by the learned Sessions Judge without being given an opportunity of reading them. In his report which he has submitted to this Court the learned Sessions Judge has denied this allegation. He states that the only document on the record upon which the signatures of the petitioner exist is the charge sheet wherein his plea of not guilty had been recorded. That being the position, it appears to us that the fear of the petitioner that he has been made to sign some documents which may prejudice him during the trial is the result of some misunderstanding.

3. Initially, the trial was to start on 25‑6‑1988 but it had to be postponed as the learned Sessions Judge fell ill. The next date for trial was fixed for 25‑9‑1988. Even though the petitioner had sufficient time for the purpose, he did not engage any counsel to assist him at the trial. Thus, when the case came up before the Court on 25‑9‑1988 he appeared without his counsel and sought an adjournment. The witnesses of the prosecution were present and there were strict instructions by the High Court not to adjourn Sessions trials on account of absence of counsel. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge declined to defer the trial. He examined six witnesses but by way of indulgence reserved the right of cross- examination of the petitioner to the next day. On the following day, the petitioner attended the Court with his counsel, Mr. T.S. Gill. At the request of Mr. Gill the learned Sessions Judge adjourned the trial for two hours so as to enable him to inspect the record.

4. One of the grievances of the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge did not give sufficient time to his counsel for inspection and that he asked his counsel to confine his inspection to the post‑mortem and the chemical examiner's reports. When his counsel protested the learned Sessions Judge remarked "let the petitioner suffer".

5. In his report the learned Sessions Judge has denied that he did not give sufficient time to the petitioner's counsel to inspect the record or that he had made the remarks attributed to him. He states that while Mr. Gill was inspecting the record, he was busy disposing of some other cases and thus there was no occasion for him to utter the alleged remarks. He has also stated that on 25‑9‑1988 he had given carbon copies of the statements which the witnesses had made, to the petitioner.

6. In view of the report submitted by the learned Sessions Judge and the attending circumstances we find little substance in the grievance of the petitioner. It is not denied by the petitioner that he had been given carbon copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded on 25‑9‑1988. Thus. before appearing in Court the petitioner's counsel was aware of what the witnesses had stated at the trial. He had already long before the trial received copies of the statements made by the witnesses before the police. The inspection of the rest of the record therefore could not have taken more than two hours. As already noticed, the learned Sessions Judge has disowned the remarks ascribed to him and we see no reason why the learned Sessions Judge should have gone out of his way to make them.

7. The petitioner further alleges that the learned Sessions Judge had been telling him that he was a murderer and that he would hang him. This is a serious allegation to be made against any judicial officer who has yet to hold the trial. The learned Sessions Judge has categorically disowned these unjudge like utterances and has also made a request to this Court that the case may be transferred away from his Court out of extra caution, perhaps.

8. Considering all the circumstances, we are inclined to believe the learned Sessions Judge who had no reason at all to condemn the petitioner before his. trial. The occurrence took place in a district other than Okara and there is no a plausible explanation why the learned Sessions Judge should have prejudged the question of guilt of the petitioner. We would therefore accept the statement of the learned Sessions Judge in the matter.

9. For the reasons stated above we do not find that any ground exists to interfere with the order of the High Court whereby it declined to transfer the case from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge to some other Court. We may also add that we are confident that the learned Sessions Judge, experienced as he is, would not permit the allegations made against him in the transfer application to influence the course of trial or the result thereof and dismiss them lightly with the thought that they emanate from the exercised mind of a person who has been called upon to stand trial on a capital charge. With these observation we would dismiss the petition. M.A.K./B‑73/S Petition dismissed.