SCMR 2008

2008 PLP 1489 (SCMR)

DOST MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ARSHAD JAVED, ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No.857-L of 2003, decided on 3rd March, 2004.
Honorable Judges
Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Abdul Hameed Dogar and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP 1489 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Abdul Hameed Dogar and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Parties DOST MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ARSHAD JAVED, ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE and another — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1489 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1489 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Abdul Hameed Dogar and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1489 (SCMR) (DOST MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ARSHAD JAVED, ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Q.M. Saleem Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 3rd March, 2004.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the order dated 9-12-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.264-T of 2003).

S. 526

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/148/149/109

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)

Transfer of case

Grant of bail to one accused by the Trial Court by itself was not a valid ground for seeking transfer of case from that Court

If the complainant petitioner was dissatisfied with the said order, he could challenge the same before the High Court

No ground for interference was made out with the impugned order

Leave to appeal was refused to the petitioner accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J.-- The petitioner has impugned order, dated 9-12-2003 of learned Chief Justice, Lahore High Court, whereby Criminal Miscellaneous No.264-T of 2003 moved by him for transfer of the case from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, was dismissed.

2. Vide F.I.R. No.357 of 2003 a case under sections 302/324/148/149/109, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Bhalwal. Transfer of the case was sought on the round that one of the accused was admitted to bail by said learned Additional Sessions Judge and it raised apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he would not get justice from said Court. The transfer application was dismissed by learned Chief Justice holding that transfer of the case was sought on "baseless allegations".

3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Simply because bail has been granted to one of the accused, this by itself is not a valid ground for seeking transfer. If the petitioner was dissatisfied with the said order, he could challenge the same before the High Court. No ground for interference is made out.

4. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./D-4/SC Leave refused.