P L D 1967 Karachi 249 (PLP)

Date of hearing : 23rd December 1965. This is an application under section 526, Cr. P. C. by Abdul Hakim for withdrawal of case No. 70/65 (Muhammad Akhtar v. Muhammad Hayat and others) under section 468/420, P. P. C. from the Court of Civil Judge and 1st Class Magistrate, Shahdadkot and its transfer to any of the Courts at Karachi. This prayer is vehemently opposed by Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin appearing for the State.

2. Main ground alleged by the applicant is that dispute is of civil nature. I find very little force in this contention at this stage as no evidence has yet been recorded by the trial Court.Copy of the complaint produced by the applicant shows that applicant Muhammad Hayat and 3 others had entered into agreement with the complainant Muhammad Akhtar at Shah dadkot in connection with claims matter. When the complainant found that he had been cheated and a forged agreement had been used he filed a complaint in the Court of Civil Judge and 1st Class Magistrate, Shahdadkot because it had jurisdiction to try the offenders. The learned Magistrate after holding preliminary inquiry registered the case and issued process against the offenders. In view of this position it cannot be said at this stage that the dispute is of civil nature.

3. Second ground urged before me was that complainant is a dangerous person and the applicant apprehended that he would be murdered if to went to Shahdadkot to attend the bearings before the trial Court there. Apparently there is no evidence on record to support the appellant in respect: of this allegation also. He had gone to Shahdadkot and had entered into agreement with the complainant and as such it cannot be said that he has any reasonable apprehension of being murdered there.

4. The other grounds urged are that `the trial Court had delayed in supplying the copies to the applicant, that this trial Court has no jurisdiction and lastly the advocate of the complainant is on friendly terms with the presiding Judge of the trial Court. Remarks were called from the Civil Judge and he has denied all these allegations. Its perusal shows that part of the offence was committed at Shahdadkot within the jurisdiction of his Court. In paragraph 7 of his remarks he has given details to show that there has been no delay in supplying the copies to the applicant. He has denied his friendly connections with the Advocate of the complainant.

5. Next objection urged on behalf of the applicant is that all the accused persons and their witnesses are residents of Karachi and hence it would be convenient to them it this case is tried at Karachi in this respect he had retied upon a case reported in A I R 1935 Sind 68 where it was hell that the fact that an accused person and his defence witnesses reside 'at a considerable distance from where they are being tried is ordinarily no ground for transfer; but where it was highly inconvenient and risky for the applicant to appear either as an accused person or as witness in certain place the‑ case should be transferred from that place. Facts of that case show that the applicant Kist. Satbhari and 7 others were being tried in a Court at Shahdadkot for an offence under section 498, P. P. C. though all the accused persons belonged to Nawabshah District. It was observed that circumstances of the case were peculiar and hence her application far transfer was allowed. In the present case those peculiar circumstances are absent. Next case relied upon by the applicant is reported in A I R 1926 Lahore

493. It was a short order and the reasons have not been discussed. However it was held that the convenience of the accused has to be con sidered rather than that of the complainant for transferring the case. In this particular case the reasons alleged by the applicant for transfer of his case from Shahdadkot to another Court at Karachi have been discussed at some length and have been found to be without any substance or material. Sind case, referred to above, lays down that besides convenience of the parties various other circumstances must also be taken into' consideration. Last case relied upon by the applicant is reported in A I R 1924 Patna

708. It was held that "where the accused carried on business at Gaya and the complainant at Buxar, and the offence was triable at both places, held that for the convenience of the accused the trial should be held at Gaya." It is correct that in this particular case, as alleged by the applicant that all the accused persons are residents of Karachi would not be a sufficient ground for the transfer of the case from Shahdadkot mainly for the reason that the offence was committed there.

6. Lastly it was urged before me that the applicant apprehends that he would not get fair justice at Shahdadkot. It is vague ground. For all these reasons I find very little substance or material. Application is accordingly rejected. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.