2005 PLP 1364 (MLD)
MAZHAR IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1364 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAZHAR IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1364 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1364 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1364 (MLD) (MAZHAR IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Ejaz Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 526
Case had been sought to be transferred to another Court on ground that application filed by applicant under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. had been dismissed by Trial Court by giving remarks that he would be convicted
Applicant had alleged that he had no confidence in the Court on account of said conduct of the Court
No specific allegation was made by applicant in his application against Presiding Officer of the Court
General allegations of mala fide were not maintainable in the eye of law
Contention of applicant/accused that Trial Court had dismissed his application filed under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., was no ground for transfer of case
Plea of applicant/accused having no force, application for transfer of case was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner has filed this transfer application on the ground that the petitioner has filed an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge concerned, who dismissed the same vide order dated 7-4-2005 by giving remarks that he will convict the accused persons, therefore, the petitioner has no confidence upon the Court on account of his conduct. He further submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not give opportunities to the accused person to cross-examine P.W.2, which is not in consonance with procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code. He further submits that in the interest of justice and fair play, the case of the petitioner may be transferred from the Court concerned to another Court.
2. The learned law officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that mere deciding the application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. by the Presiding Officer is no ground for transfer of a case from him; therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
4. In case, contention of learned counsel of the petitioner be accepted that in case, any Presiding Officer has passed any interim order or decide any application during the proceedings and decided the application against any party, the case be transferred on the application of the aggrieved person on this ground, then whole system of judiciary will be collapsed and no case can be finalized by any of the Courts, therefore, contention of learned counsel of the petitioner that learned trial Court has dismissed the application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. of the petitioner by giving aforesaid remarks, has no force. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no specific allegation against the Presiding Officer concerned levelled by the petitioner in the contents of this petition. Even otherwise, general allegations of mala fide are not sustainable in the eye of law laid down in the following judgments: -- "Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmad Khan and others" (PLD 1974 SC 151); "Amanullah Khan and others v. Federation A of Pakistan and others" (PLD 1990 SC 1092); "Shah Jehan v. Special Judge Anti-Corruption and others" (1992 PCr.LJ 1982); "Muhammad Malik v. Muhammad Farooq and 2 others" (1993 PCr.LJ 1362); "Mushtaq Ahmad v. Mst. Rajan and others" (NLR 1994 Cr.LJ 652); "Abdul Sattar and others v. The State" (1993 PCr.LJ 614) and "Imam Bux v. Shadi Khan and 4 others" (1996 PCr.LJ 933). In view of what has been discussed above, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./M-1038/L Appeal dismissed.