P L D 1969 Lahore 1049 (PLP)

Ahmad Din v. King‑Emperor A I R 1925 Lah. 101 disting uished. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 344‑Adjourn ment‑Counsel sending adjournment application through petitioner and asking for date of his own choice‑Held, counsel asked for too much indulgence‑Such indulgence could not be claimed as a matter of right. Ch. Masood Zakria for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 6th, June 1969. What appears to have shaken the petitioner's confidence in the fairness of the learned Sessions Judge is, firstly, that he held the petitioner and some other co‑accused responsible for the non service of two of the appellants, secondly, that it was after a great difficulty that he was persuaded to adjourn the case to a fortnight and thirdly, that he was adamant on disposing of the case then and there and at long last after a lot of importunities that he was persuaded to adjourn the case only for a couple of days. The anxiety of the Court for disposing of the case can be well appreciated. The case was fixed for the 28th of April 1969, when the petitioner‑appellant appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the first time. He adjourned the case to the 12th of May 1969 leaving for the petitioner a fortnight's time to engage a counsel which opportunity was not availed of by him in time. Then again the conduct of the learned counsel in sending an application through the petitioner seeking an adjournment and also asking for a date of his own choice was prima facie asking for rather too much of indulgence 4 which could not be claimed as a matter of right. Nevertheless the case was adjourned to a short date, but the counsel did not and perhaps could not appear to argue the case and adopted the path of least resistance of seeking transfer of the case.

2. The well‑settled principle to be kept in view in a case of la this nature is that justice should not only be done but also be seen to have been done. From the background of the case, I am not convinced that sufficient grounds were in existence to give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he shall not have a fair trial at the hands of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Referring me to Ahmad Din v, King‑Emperor (A I R 1925 Lah. 101), learned counsel for the petitioner argues that even though the action of the Judge may be capable of a reasonable explanation, its reaction on the susceptibility of the petitioner's seeking transfer of the case should be taken into consideration. There could be hardly two opinions as to the correctness of the above view but it might be observed that it should be the susceptibility of a normal person and not of one who is of a hyper‑sensitive nature and may unnecessarily be touched so as to smell a rat everywhere. It can be hoped with confidence that the learned Sessions Judge will do full justice according to law and can be least expected to have any bias against the petitioner. With this observations I disallow the: petition. S. G. D. Petition disallowed.