1986 P Cr (PLP)

Jari Ullah Khan for the Petitioners. Rehmat Ali Malik for the State. Date of hearing: 5th June, 1985. This is an application under section. 526, Cr.P.C. for the transfer of a case In re: State v. Ghulam Sarwar and others under section 458/365/325/324/148/149; P.P.C. read with section 10/11/16 of the Offence Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, pertaining to an occurrence which allegedly took place on the night between 6th/7th of June, 1981, from the Court of Akhtar Mehmood Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.

2. The case is against eleven accused including the two petitioners, namely, Ghulam Sabir and Ghulam Sarwar. The remaining accused have not been impleaded in this application. Earlier all the accused had filed a similar application on 20th of February, 1985 but on 12th of March, 1985 this application was dismissed as having been withdrawn.

3. The transfer of the case is sought on the ground that "they are not going to have a fair and impartial trial from the learned trial Judge". The circumstances which according to the petitioners have given rise to the apprehension are; firstly that on 31st of January, 1985 when the statement of Ahmad Yar D.W. 2 was being recorded, the learned trial Judge passed the remark,......in an extremely ironical way; secondly that on 6th of February, 1985, the trial Judge on a false complaint by his Naib Court against Ghulam Sarwar, petitioner No.2 abused him and threatened him with the registration of a case against him if he misbehaved with Naib Court in future; thirdly that the complainant‑party had started claiming that they had already approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge; fourthly that on 18th of April, 1985, the trial Judge summarily rejected an application filed on behalf of the accused for exemption from appearance on the ground that they were busy in connection with Chehlum of the mother of Maqsood, one of the accused but later on allowing the request for exemption as well as for an adjournment, adjourned the case to 20th of April, 1985 and fifthly that on 20th of April, 1985 when an application was filed by the petitioners under section 526(8), Cr.P.C. for an adjournment, the learned trial Judge became extremely angry and after great reluctance and obtaining opinion from some other counsel, adjourned the case to 27th of April, 1985, giving the adjournment only for seven days. It is also complained that the learned trial Judge on that date heard arguments of counsel for the complainant in the absence of counsel for the accused.

4. The learned trial Judge in his comments has comprehensively explained the above circumstances. His explanation does not at all smack of contrivance. Learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted in his arguments that the learned trial Judge is reputed to be honest. After perusing the comments submitted by the learned trial Judge and hearing learned counsel for the petitioners I feel that the apprehension entertained by the petitioners is unfounded. It is expected that the learned trial Judge will decide the case purely on merits in accordance with law and without any bias whatsoever. I, therefore, find no ground for the transfer of the case and dismiss this application. H.A.K. Application dismissed.