1988 PLP 534 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD USMAN and 5 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 534 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD USMAN and 5 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 534 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 534 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 534 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD USMAN and 5 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Khalid Mahmood Shaheen for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 526 &561‑A‑‑Transfer of case‑‑Revision petition was admitted to regular hearing by another Additional Sessions Judge‑‑Transfer of such revision petition to another Additional Sessions Judge, held, was not illegal though it would have been better in normal circumstances that the, matter was fixed before the admitting Additional Sessions Judge. Umed Ali v. State P L D 1987 Kar. 372 and State v. Zubair etc. P L D 1986 SC 173 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
'The petitioners seek transfer of their revision petition from the Court of Mr. Alauddin Arshed, Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal, filed against the order passed by the Magistrate on an application under section 249‑A, Cr;P.C.
2. The main ground urged for transfer of the revision petition is that the revision petition was admitted to a regular hearing by Syed Hassan Ali Shah, another Additional Session Judge. In this regard learned counsel has cited Umed Ali v. The State (P L D 1987 Karachi 372). This Judgment is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court, reported as State v. Zubair etc."(P L D 1986 SC 173), wherein it has been held that subsequent application should be placed before the Judge who had decided the earlier application. The case before the Karachi High Court also was regarding subsequent application.
3. The case in hand is not one of subsequent application. Herein all, what had already happened is that the revision petition was admitted to regular hearing by another Additional Sessions Judge. Even though it would have been better in normal circumstances that the matter may have been placed before the same Additional Sessions Judge, but transfer of the revision petition to another Additional Sessions Judge of competent jurisdiction cannot be termed as illegal. Laying down such a precedent can create problems and difficulties. The vague allegation levelled against the Additional Sessions Judge that the petitioners have no confidence in him, cannot be given any weight.
4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the transfer application. The same is dismissed in limine. M.B.A./M‑586/L Application dismissed.