2006 PLP 1918 (MLD)
DILBER ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1918 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DILBER ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1918 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1918 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1918 (MLD) (DILBER ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent No.2.
- I have heard the Advocate for the Applicant, A.A.-G. for the State and perused the comments filed by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has denied the allegations but stated that he is trying to proceed with the case expeditiously in view of the directions of High Court that the cases of UTPs be proceeded with quickly. However, he has stated that he has no objection if the case is transferred to' any other Court.
- The learned counsel for the Applicant has stated that the learned Judge has framed the charge in the absence of the Advocate of the accused as under the law the murder case cannot be proceeded with without appointing an Advocate on State expense if the accused fails to engage an Advocate. The learned counsel for the Applicant is right in saying that the cases involving capital punishment cannot be tried in the absence of accused's Advocate and if the accused is unable to engage an Advocate then counsel on State expenses is required to be appointed by the trial Court and then the case can be proceeded with. If the trial Court proceeds the case in the absence of the accused then it is an illegality which cannot be cured. Reliance is placed on a case of Shafique Ahmed v. State PLD 2006 Karachi 377. The learned trial Judge should go through the said authority and conduct himself in accordance with law.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 526
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Applicant/complainant had sought transfer of case to any other Court on the ground that accused's brother was expressing publicly that accused would be acquitted by the trial Judge
Ground taken by applicant for transfer of case was vague as neither the Court nor any body could restrict any party from expressing any thing
If such expression would amount to hampering the Court proceedings or casting shadow upon the impartiality of the Judge or disreputing the Judge, then the party had right to move the concerned Court for initiating contempt proceedings against such person; thereafter the points could be properly threshed out to determine whether or not the said person had uttered such words
If the brother of accused had expressed the words as stated by applicant in his application, then they must have been heard by several persons
Applicant could have produced said witnesses to substantiate his allegation, but applicant had not filed any affidavit of any such person in support of his allegation
No cogent ground having been shown for transferring the case, application for transfer of case, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.
This is a transfer application filed by the Applicant, who is Complainant in Sessions Case No.53 of 2005 State v. Rajib Ali pending on the file of learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur with a prayer to transfer the case from the said file to any other Court on the ground that accused's brother was expressing publicly that the accused would be acquitted by the trial Judge. I have heard the Advocate for the Applicant, A.A.-G. for the State and perused the comments filed by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has denied the allegations but stated that he is trying to proceed with the case expeditiously in view of the directions of High Court that the cases of UTPs be proceeded with quickly. However, he has stated that he has no objection if the case is transferred to' any other Court. The grounds taken by the Applicant is vague. Neither the Court nor any body can compel any party from expressing any thing. If such expression amounts to hamper the Court proceedings or put cast upon the impartiality of the Judge or try to disgrace the Judge then the party has right to move the concerned Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the said person. Thereafter the points can be properly threshed out to determine whether or not the said person had uttered such words. If the brother of the accused had expressed the words as stated in the Application then they must have been heard by several persons. The Applicant could have produced the said witnesses to substantiate his allegation but the Applicant has not filed any affidavit of any such person in support of his allegation. The learned counsel for the Applicant has stated that the learned Judge has framed the charge in the absence of the Advocate of the accused as under the law the murder case cannot be proceeded with without appointing an Advocate on State expense if the accused fails to engage an Advocate. The learned counsel for the Applicant is right in saying that the cases involving capital punishment cannot be tried in the absence of accused's Advocate and if the accused is unable to engage an Advocate then counsel on State expenses is required to be appointed by the trial Court and then the case can be proceeded with. If the trial Court proceeds the case in the absence of the accused then it is an illegality which cannot be cured. Reliance is placed on a case of Shafique Ahmed v. State PLD 2006 Karachi
377. The learned trial Judge should go through the said authority and conduct himself in accordance with law. After considering the material available on record, I am of the considered view that no cogent ground has been shown for transferring the case, therefore, the Application is dismissed. H.B.T./D-50/K Application dismissed.