1990 P Cr (PLP)

Rohail Ahmed son of Muhammad Shamim Mirza, Resident of Shaikh Zaid Colony, Karachi . Complainant Versus (1) Nadeem Ahmed son- of Muhammad Shamim Mirza Resident of 3-Cl. Jason Apartment, Clifton, Karachi Accused (2) Naeem Ahmed son of Muhammad Shamim Mirza, Resident of J-124 Block C, North Nazimabad, Karachi . Accused Crime under section 400-420 P.P.C Complaint of the complainant is as under: I, the complainant is resident of Mohalla Shaikh Zaid Colony. Larkana City. The accused persons are acquainted to the complainant. About 15 days back, the accused persons had come to visit Mohenjodaro, and they stayed with me. I had to purchase colour T.V. On my saying, they told that they had T.V. and further they asked me to pay them the money, they would deliver the same at there, while my money would remain as `Amant' (Trust). I paid them Rs.15,000 in cash before the witnesses. They gave me assurance and went away saying that they would deliver T.V. at there. After one week, I went to them. They did not give me satisfactory reply. Now, I have come to lodge report that the accused persons, after giving me assurance had committed breach of trust. I am complainant. Investigation may be made." On original Signature in Sindhi language of complainant, Rohail Khan Witnesses: (1) Ali son of Qalandar Bux Oadri, Resident of Village Valeed, Taluka, Larkana. (2) Azhar Ali son of Rajib Ali Kori, Resident of Village Valeed, Taluka Larkana." The learned Resident Magistrate after recording the statements of complainant and the two witnesses under section 202, Cr.P.C. passed the order to the following effect on 22-2-1989: "From the perusal of statement of complainant and witnesses namely Ali Muhammad Qadri and Azhar Ali Kori, it appears that the offence prima facie under section 420-406, P.P.C. is made out Issue B/W against the accused in the sum of Rs.5,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount. Put off to 12-3-1989. Complainant directed to attend. Dated 22-2-1989. (Sd.) Resident Magistrate, Larkana." After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and from the examination of the documents available in the tile, I have reached the following conclusions: The main plea of the applicants in this transfer application is that respondent No.2 had been set up by the Customs officials to file private complaint at Larkana and I find substance in the apprehension of the applicants that if they leave the city of Karachi and go to Larkana they are likely to be abducted and put to danger of life at Larkana as they have received such threats repeatedly. The applicants have filed affidavit in proof of the allegations made in the application and the respondent, on the other hand, has not filed any counter affidavit to show that the apprehension of the applicants is unjustified, baseless or unfounded, as such in the circumstances the un-rebutted allegations, which are not controverted are, in my view, established. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that inconvenience would be caused to the respondent, in my view, the convenience of accused is preferable upon convenience of complainant and reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Jamshed v. The State reported in 1985 M L D 66 and in the case of Jumma Khan v. The State and others 1969 S C M R 826 the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court allowed the transfer of the case from the criminal Court at Sukkur to one at Lahore, on the ground of apprehension of forcibly kidnapping by the opposite party at Sukkur. In view of the above legal and factual position and the peculiar circumstances of the case, I feel persuaded that the allegations made by the applicants are not without force and I am of the view that the apprehension in the mind of the applicants is not unfounded, baseless or unjustified. Consequently I have come to the conclusion that it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the case from Larkana to Karachi. Accordingly the transfer application is allowed and it is directed that the private complaint (Rohail Khan son of Moujuddin v. Nadeem Ahmed and Naeem Ahmed) under section 400-420, P.P.C. pending in the Court of Resident Magistrate, Larkana shall be withdrawn from the file of Resident Magistrate, Larkana and transferred to the file of District Magistrate, Karachi (East) who shall try the case himself or make it to any other First Class Magistrate at Karachi competent to try the case. Before parting with the case, I would like to express the hope that the trial Court would also expedite the disposal of the case in which apparently apart from the complainant, there are only two witnesses cited in the private complaint. Criminal Transfer Application No.13 of 1989 is granted as above. N.H.Q./N-235/K Application allowed.