1989 PLP 184 (SCMR)

Rashid Murtaza Qureshi Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafferi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 31st July, 1988. ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 12‑7‑1988, whereby two criminal petitions under sections 526,, Cr.P.C. and 561‑A, Cr.P.C. were disposed of.

2. The petitioner, a practising Advocate, has been charged with various offences in the F.I.R. Nos. 331 of 19KS and 332 of 1988, lodged on 2fi‑6‑1988. He moved the Duty Magistrate for admitting him to bail on 2,6‑6‑1988. The learned Magistrate after calling for the report from the Ilaqa Police entrusted the bail applications to the Ilaqa Magistrate for consideration on 27‑6‑1988. It seems that the same day the petitioner submitted two applications before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, for admitting him to bail. These bail applications were admitted for regular hearing, notice was also issued and the record summoned for 30‑6‑1988. The petitioner was admitted to interim bail in both the cases. A report from the Magistrate concerned was also called for. This led the complainant to file two criminal petitions under sections 526, Cr.P.C. and 561‑A, Cr.P.C. in the High Court. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant /petitioner and the State through the impugned order allowed the petition under section 526, Cr.P.C. and transferred the two bail matters pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, for disposal in accordance with law within one week. He, however, disposed of the criminal petition under section 561‑A Cr.P.C. in terms of the order on criminal petition under section 526, Cr.P.C.

3. Mr. Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate, has been heard at some length He submitted that in passing the impugned order the learned Single Judge has acted in flagrant disregard of the judicial norms as no notice was given to the petitioner and similarly no reason existed for passing scathing and damaging remarks against the learned Additional Sessions Judge without issuing him a notice or calling for his comments. 4.???????? As the record stands, we are afraid none of the above contentions would prevail in that the learned Single Judge has only transferred the two bail matters from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of the Sessions Judge without making any prejudicial remarks against the petitioner. True that disparaging remark has been passed in this case by the learned Judge of the High Court without calling for the comments from the Additional Sessions Judge but p then the petitioner has no locus standi to take up the cause of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is only he, that is, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who can seek his redress as provided for under the law if so advised. 5.???????? The petition is thus dismissed. M.I./N‑1114/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed,