1999 PLP 1875 (SCMR)

WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.

The facts of this case are somewhat peculiar. The petitioner, allegedly, made threats to the Presiding Judge '(Additional Sessions Judge-I/Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Gujranwala) in relation to proceedings pending against him before such Judge in the matter of F.I.R. No.399, dated 3-12-1992, of Police Station Gar Jakh, District Gujranwala, under sections 302/324/148 and 149, P.P.C. While, on the one hand, the petitioner sought transfer of such proceedings, per Miscellaneous No.189-T of 1998 before the Lahore High Court, the learned Presiding Judge also expressed his inability to proceed, pursuant to which the Sessions Judge made a corresponding reference vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.229-T of 1998, seeking transfer of the case to any other Court on the ground that the accused were extending threats to the said Presiding Judge. As to the petitioner's transfer application the High Court found that the same had been made without disclosing the fact that an earlier similar plea of transfer had been rejected by a Bench of the same Court. Criminal Miscellaneous No.189-T of 1998, was, therefore, dismissed on the ground of suppression alone. No exception can be taken to such an outcome, transfer of a case being a discretionary matter and it being incumbent on the relevant applicant to approach the Court with clean hands'. As regards the transfer reference from the learned Sessions Judge, such also was declined by the High Court in the under noted terms:-- "(5) Learned trial Court which is seized of the matter shall proceed with the trial. In case the accused extend any threat to learned Presiding Officer, learned Sessions Judge, shall have the case registered against the accused forthwith. Learned trial Court may proceed against the accused under section 476, Cr.P.C. as well. Further precautionary measures such as bringing the accused from Jail to the Court premises in bar fetters may also be recoursed to if needed. 'The accused cannot over awe a Court of law or get a forum of his choice by playing dirty tricks. We do not see any reason as to why the trial Judge should not conduct this case. Judicial Officer must stand upto the assignment given to him and should not be afraid of or flinch from exercising powers vested in him in accordance with law. (6) The case will be tried by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge-I, GujranwWala. (7) Criminal Miscellaneous No.229-T of 1998, is disposed of with the above observations." Against the aforesaid orders cumulatively passed by the High Court on 2-11-1998 the accused has preferred this leave petition. Having already disposed of the matter of the petitioner's direct transfer application (Miscellaneous 189-T of 1998), as above, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take any view different than that of the High Court even as regards the reference to transfer (Criminal Miscellaneous No.229-T of 1998). Totally unacceptable results would follow if transfers on such pleas are effected. The implications are obvious. All that would take a motivated accused person to obtain transfer would be to hurl veiled threats to the Presiding Judge and, taking advantage of the same, secure an unwarranted transfer of the case. There is another aspect to this, which also needs to be noted. While it is, in normal circumstances, prerogative of a Judge to decline to hear a particular case and no reasons need be assigned for so doing, once the concerned Judge prefers to make the reasons manifest, transfer of the case from him, all things remaining equal, may occasion scrutiny and examination of such reasons. . As it transpires, in the instant case, the reasons assigned do not qualify either under section 526, Cr.P.C., or any other law, including the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975,' brought to our notice. As A corollary to the foregoing discussion, the High Court order is maintained and this leave' petition, having no merit, is dismissed. M.B.A./S-131/S Petition dismissed.