1973 P Cr (PLP)

S. M. Sohail for Appellant. Unman Ghani Rashid, Asstt. A.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 20th November 1972. As my previous order in this case wilt show petitioner was allowed to amend this petition in order to allege what was then being orally alleged, namely, that lie had apprehension of personal danger in the District of Larkana 2. An amended petition has now been sled in which again the ground mainly put is that the authorities are inimical to the petitioner and that he apprehends that his previous treatment at the hands of the S. H. O. Baqrani would be repeated if he goes to Larkana. The expression "authorities" is used here in the sense of, not the local district authorities, but the Government of Sind and indeed throughout the application the allegation is against the Pakistan People's Party and the Government of the day which is in power both at the Centre and in the Province. I am, therefore, quite unable to understand how a transfer of the case from the District of Larkana to any other District reduces the danger which the petitioner claims. I am not of course, deciding the question whether in fact the authorities have or have not behaved in the manner alleged. The allegation even now is made generally and it is not the case of the petitioner that any particular individual in the district authorities has animus against him. The animus claimed is by reason of the investigation of Government itself. It also claimed that if the petitioner goes to Larkana he might entrapped in some false criminal case. In regard to both this matters, however, it is clear that the danger, if any, is as great in Larkana as in any other district. 3. The petition expressly states in paragraph 8 that there is no question of any apprehension of a prejudice at the hands of the extra joint Civil Judge and 1st Class Magistrate before which Court this Case is pending. 4. Reliance is then placed upon an order of a Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Transfer Application No. 30/72 which transferred another case from the Larkana District to Hyderabad District. I should not have been inclined to transfer this case on that ground alone inasmuch as the two cases are entirely un connected, their only common feature being that the petitioner is an accused in these cases. However, since that order recited as a ground the statement of the Advocate-General that in order to allay the alleged fear and apprehension of the applicant that he will not get a fair trial from the S. D. M., Larkana and also to show the bona fide of Government he did not object, I, therefore, asked the learned Assistant Advocate-General as to how be dis tinguished this case from the earlier one and he took a little time in order either to consult the Advocate-General or to request the latter to appear personally. He has not appeared personally but the learned Assistant Advocate-General has pointed out to me, as is obvious from the order itself, that that was a case pending before the S.D.M. and the Advocate-General had not admitted the facts as alleged but that because they were alleged he wished to make it clear that the Government- did not insist that the case remain before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The case was, there fore, not only transferred outside the District but to a Judicial Magistrate. Clearly, therefore, that case is distinguishable. 5. In these circumstances I see no sufficient reason for allowing this application for transfer. Of course, if at any time hereafter, any facts arise which could show general apprehension in the mind of the petitioner he is free to make such an application as is advisable. Petition dismissed.