1989 PLP 1388 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondent: Date of hearing: 5th March. 1989. BORDER GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Muhammad Parvez Ehsan Ullah seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 9‑1‑1989 whereby his request for the transfer of two criminal cases "State v. Muhammad Parvez Ehsan Ullah"‑one for the double murder of two real brothers, namely, Bakaullah and Zakaullah and the other under the Arms Ordinance, from District Sargodha to another District was declined. The grounds for transfer were that the Bar Association Sargodha, Local Social Organizations and the Press had very strongly condemned the petitioner. All of them wanted exemplary punishment. No local lawyer was prepared to defend him. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at full length. He laid great stress on the fact that the local Bar had passed a resolution condemning the petitioner. The entire Bar was hostile. Petitioner was unable to hire the services of a local lawyer. Hence, it was in the interest of justice that he should be tried in some other District so that he may get a fair trial. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied on the case of Crown through Mst. Bhag Bhari v. Mian Hussain and another (P L D 1955 Lah. 402) and Muhammad Nawaz v. Ghulam Kadir and 3 others (P L D 1973 S C 327) The occurrence took place on 14‑7‑1962. The petitioner was arrested on that very day. From the order of the High Court it so appears that later on he was kidnapped from the police custody while he was being taken to Peshawar. Thereafter he was declared proclaimed offender and was again arrested on 8‑10‑1988. The trial has not yet commenced. Twenty‑six years have gone by. This is really disgusting. Earlier a transfer application moved by the petitioner had also been dismissed. We called upon the learned counsel to show us the resolution of the Bar Association. He was unable to do so except that he drew our attention to a few news items. Learned counsel was further asked if there was any affidavit to show that the petitioner had approached the lawyer but he declined to accept the brief. He could not produce any such evidence. The case‑law cited at the Bar is not helpful to the petitioner because of different facts and situation. We have noted that it this almost become a routine in coming to this Court in matters like bail, cancellation of bail and transfer applications. An Advocate especially a senior Advocate must first make sure before a petition is put in that there is a substantial question of law of public importance which needs consideration by this Court otherwise such matters must come to an end at the High Court level. In this petition there is hardly any substance for consideration. Dismissed. M.A.X./M‑868/S, Petition dismissed