SCMR 1973

1973 PLP 134 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus YOUSAF ARAB AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. K‑32 and K‑33 of 1972, decided on 16th February 1973.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1973 PLP 134 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus YOUSAF ARAB AND OTHERS‑Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 134 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 134 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 PLP 134 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus YOUSAF ARAB AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate instructed by Merajuddin Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing : 16th February 1973.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the orders of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, both dated 18‑9‑1972, passed in Criminal Mis cellaneous Applications Nos. 38 and 39 of 1972 respectively. Criminal trial‑‑Joint trial‑Two cases requiring to be tried to gether‑One case committed to Court of Session for trial‑No legal bar in the way of other case being also sent up for trial to same Court.

Judgment & Decree

ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑This order will dispose of Criminal Petitions bearing Nos. K‑32 and K‑33 of 1972. By an elaborate order made on the 18th of September 1972, the learned Chief JUStiC:e of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court had transferred two criminal cases, pending between the parties, from the Court of Civil Judge and Magistrate of the 1st Class at Thatta to the Court of Mr. Khadim Hussain Junejo, Civil Judge and F. C M. at Karachi. Earlier, both these cases had been transferred by the learned Chief Justice, by an order made on the 5th of November 1971, from the Courts of two Magistrates at Karachi to the Court of the Civil Judge and F. C. M. at Thatta. As no appreciable progress was made in either of these two cases in the Court of the Civil Judge and F. C. M. Thatta, the petitioner again moved the High Court for the transfer of the cases to the original side of that Court. This prayer was, however, not accepted, but instead transfer was ordered to the Court of Mr. Khadim Hussain Junejo, as already stated. On the transfer of Mr. Junejo from Karachi, both the cases were entrusted to Mr. Inayatullah Ansari, Civil Judge If Class and Magistrate of the 1st Class at Karachi. It is submitted by Mr. Shahzad Jahangir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the learned Magistrate to whom y the cases now stand transferred under the orders of the High Court, _ has no jurisdiction in the matter, as some of the offences alleged against the respondents are triable either by a Court of Session or by a Magistrate exercising enhanced powers under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing the learned counsel, we are not at all persuaded that any justification is made out for our interference in the matter. The contention raised before us was rightly repelled by the learned Chief Justice by saying that if the trial Court came to the conclusion that it could not try the offences made out against the respondents, it could commit the cases to the Court of Session for trial. We see no illegality in this view of the High Court. If both the cases have to tried together, and one of them is being committed to the Court of Session for trial, there is no legal bar in the way of other case being also sent up for trial to the same Court. In the peculiar circumstances of these two cases, the learned Chief Justice had come to the conclusion that it was not expedient that these cases should be tried by the ordinary Magistrates working under the control of the District Magistrate of Karachi. In these circumstances, it was clearly not possible to entrust these cases to a Magistrate exercising enhanced powers under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in these petitions which accordingly fail and are hereby dismissed. Leave refused.