1973 S (PLP)

ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑This petition for special leave is directed against an order made on the 20th November 1972 by the learned Chief Justice o the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi, whereby an application made by the present petitioner for the transfer of a criminal case pending against him at Larkana to some other District was rejected. The petitioner is a Member of the National Assembly from the Dadu District, and belongs to the Pakistan Peoples Party. He is facing prosecution in at least four criminal cases, all originat ing in the Larkana District. Two of these cases have already been transferred to Hyderabad District by the High Court, whereas the third case under sections 363 and 366 of the Pakistan Penal Code is pending in the Court of Extra Joint Civil judge and Ist Class Magistrate at Larkana. The fourth case is still under investigation and the._‑challan has not yet been submitted in Court. The transfer of the case was sought by the petitioner on the grounds that owing to political differences between him and certain important leaders of his own party, "he was being harrassed in various ways and is being victimised for no fault", that the cases against the applicant "are the result of political enmity with the Ruling Party and the administration at Larkana is against the applicant and he feats that justice will not be done to him if he is tried at Larkana", and "that the applicant appre hends that he will not get a fair trial at Larkana as the atmosphere over there is full of political influence and political pressures and is very much hostile to the applicant and the Authorities in Larkana have acted in a manner hostile to the applicant". In elaboration of these grounds the petitioner alleged that successive false cases had been registered against him at Larkana, and that he had grave apprehension that once be entered Larkana, lie would be subjected to vile insults and physical assault, and that his presence in Larkana would be utilized by his political opponents and the local administration to again involve him in one criminal case or the other. The learned Chief Justice has observed in the order under appeal that the petitioner had not said anything against the judicial Magistrate entrusted with the trial of the case in question and that general allegations made by the petitioner against the Ruling Party would not justify transfer of the case from Larkana to any other District, as the Ruling Party had the same influence in all the other Districts of the Province of Sind. On this view of the matter the petitioner's transfer application has been rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, that the High Court has erred in thinking that the petitioner bad expressed only a general apprehension against the Ruling Party and the Authorities, as in fact he had made specific allegations against the Larkana administration, particularly the police officials of that District. The learned counsel further submits that the past conduct of the police officials of Larkana in registering successive cases against the petitioner, and in blocking of the entrances to the High Court Building at Karachi, where the petitioner had moved an application for bail before arrest, clearly show how the mind of the Larkana police is working in this matter. Finally the learned counsel contends that the petitioner, as a Member of the National Assembly of Pakistan, has a certain status in social and political life, and therefore the personal apprehensions entertained by him against the Larkana Authorities, supported by instances of their past conduct, could not have been rightly brushed aside by the High Court, as it is a basic principle that justice should not only be done but must also be seen to be done. The learned Advocate‑General, Sind has opposed this petition on the ground that the transfer application did not disclose any specific allegation against the trial Court, nor against the local authorities of Larkana District; on the contrary it was full of wild allegations against the leaders of the petitioner's own political party. The learned Advocate‑General submits that in the two cases transferred by the High Court to Hyderabad, he himself had consented to the transfer as those cases were before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who was under the administrative control of the Executive Authorities, but the present case is being tried by a Civil Judge exercising magisterial powers, against whom no allegation has been abundantly made by the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate‑General of Sind Province, we consider that this is a fit case where leave to appeal ought to be granted. As the matter ii a short one and all the material is already before the Court, we have decided to convert this petition into appeal, and to dispose of the same on merits. From the facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs, and from copies of the orders passed by the High Court in two pre vious transfer applications moved by the petitioner as well as in~ a bail application, it becomes abundantly clear that for some reasons or the other a spate of criminal cases has cropped up against the petitioner in Larkana District, although he is not a resident of that District, nor a Member of the National Assembly from that Constituency. The observations made by the learned Chief Justice, in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order made by him on the 26th of September 1972 in Criminal Bail Application No. 432 of 1972, support the allegations made by the petitioner that the police had blocked the entrances to the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi with the result that the petitioner was prevented from appearing before the learned Chief Justice at the time of the hearing of his application for anticipatory bail. It 6 thus appears that the circumstances of the prosecution of the petitioner in Larkana District are far from ordinary, and accord ingly the apprehension entertained by him regarding his safety during his presence in that District and the possibility of his in volvement in further criminal cases by the Larkana police, cannot be said to be unjustified. We consider therefore, that the High Court was in error in thinking that the petitioner had failed to make out sufficient grounds for the transfer of the case from Larkana to any other District. The apprehensions expressed by him do find support from the circumstances appearing on the record. We would accordingly accept inns appeal and direct that the case under section 363/366, P.P.C. pending against the petitioner in the Court of Extra Joint Civil Judge and 1st Class Magistrate at Larkana shall be transferred to Hyderabad, so as to be tried alongwith the two other cases against the petitioner which have already been transferred to that District by the High Court. The District Magistrate of Hyderabad shall entrust this case to the same Magistrate who is already ceased of the other two cases against the petitioner. Appeal allowed.