2001 P Cr (PLP)

By this transfer application, the applicant/accused Muhammad Munir has sought transfer of Sessions Case No.52 of 2000 re: State v. Muhammad Munir from the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Karachi‑East to any other Court in Karachi. The case is outcome of F.I.R. No.3 of 2000 of Police Station, Soldier Bazar, Karachi‑East.

2. I have heard Mr. I.A. Usmani, learned counsel for the applicant/accused and Mr. Habib Ahmed, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh on behalf of the State. I have perused the material placed on record.

3. It is contended that the trial Judge disallowed importan questions in cross‑examination put by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused to the prosecution witnesses which were essential for the just adjudication of the case.

4. It is further contended that the learned trial Judge recorded the replies according to his own version and thereby caused prejudice to the applicant/accused. It is, therefore, contended that the accused apprehends injustice at the hands of trial Judge.

5. The comments were called from the learned trial Judge. It will be pertinent to reproduce hereinbelow the relevant paragraphs of the comments for the sake of convenience. "On 21‑9‑2000 P.W. Shaukat Hussain one of the Mashirs of the place of incident and recovery of crime weapon i.e. pistol from the on the pointation of accused Shahid, was examined. Advocate for accused Muhammad Munir resorted to a very lengthy cross examination. Some of his questions, being irrelevant, were disallowed. One ques;ion was: Whether the Investigating Officer had recorded statement of Ashique Hussain'? The question was disallowed, because the witness, from whom the question was being put, was neither the Investigating Officer or supervising the investigation, and nor Ashique Hussain is a prosecution witness. The other question, which was disallowed, was‑‑ 'How many flats will be in that locality'? The question was put after the witness had already clarified that the flat in question was situated in a thickly‑populated area. After such clarification, it was unnecessary to ask the witness to give the total number of flats situated in that locality. The number of the flats was not a relevant fact. Moreover, witness cannot be expected to know the total number of flats in a thickly‑populated area. Due to the disallowing of the above two questions learned counsel for the accused, apparently being over‑assertive in nature, appeared to have got annoyed. The present application appears to have been moved only to satisfy his ego."

6. The perusal of the above comments shows that the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, put irrelevant questions to the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the same were not allowed. It is the duty of the Judge under law to decide about the relevancy, irrelevancy, admissibility or inadmissibility of the questions put to the witness. The object of the cross- examination is to elucidate the truth. The Presiding Officer of the Court has to ensure that the witness is not heckled or harassed by way of any irrelevant question. The, witness is as respectable as any other person until and unless it is proved otherwise. Both sides of the scale are to be kept equal and not to be tilted on either side. It is well‑settled that mere apprehension in the mind of a party that he will not get justice at the hands of Presiding Officer of the Court is no ground .for transfer of the case. The apprehension must be reasonable. The reasonableness is to be decided looking towards the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Merely because certain irrelevant questions were put to the witness and disallowed by the trial Judge, it would not furnish sufficient ground for the transfer of case.

7. Consequently, the application merits no consideration and, it stands dismissed. H.B.T./M‑155/K Application dismissed.