P L D 1990 Karachi 478 (PLP)

Miscellaneous Application No.1275 of 1990 is fixed before me for hearing in which the prayer is that regular hearing of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.217 of 1990 (quashment of proceedings under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C.) should take place at Circuit Bench Hyderabad as now the vacation is over and Bench is available there and further that the case pertains to Hyderabad Circuit Bench. This Application No.1275 of 1990 is filed by Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh, Advocate of Complainant Mir Nasir Khan who is respondent No.2 in quashment proceedings (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.217 of 1990) and is further complainant in the direct complainant which is filed by him against Mumtaz Ahmed and his wife and son for offences under sections 420 and 506, P.P.C. in the Court of A.C.M. Latifabad, Hyderabad in which bailable warrants have been issued. Being aggrieved against the issue of Bailable Warrants Mumtaz Ahmed and two others filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application 217 of 1990 for quashment of proceedings under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. alongwith an application C.M.A. No.1131 of 1990 with prayer for hearing at principal seat instead of Circuit Bench at Hyderabad. This application was allowed vide order dated 16‑7‑1990. After which vide another order dated 17‑7‑1990, main application quashment of proceedings was admitted to regular hearing. Now request is made in the application mentioned above for regular hearing of the case of quashment of proceedings at Circuit Bench Hyderabad. So far the legal aspect is concerned, as envisaged under Article 198(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, permanent Bench at Sukkur is set up and as provided under sub‑Article (4) Governor of Sindh on the advice of the Cabinet and in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court has set up a Circuit Bench at Hyderabad as well. Further, as provided under sub‑Article (6), Governor of Sindh in consultation with the Chief Justice of Sindh High Court has made rules to provide for matters relating to assigning the area of jurisdiction and for all incidental, supplemental or consequential matters. In consequent, High Court Benches Rules, 1987 have been published in the Gazette of Sindh Extraordinary, Part I on July 21st, 1988. Under Rule 5 of the rules mentioned above, Chief Justice is empowered' A to transfer any case or proceeding filed or. pending at the principal seat of the High Court to a Bench or from one Bench to the principal seat of the High Court or another Bench. Under Rule 6, the Chief Justice is empowered for the purpose of expediency to determine the case or class of cases arising within the area assigned to a Bench that may be filed and decided at the principal seat of the High Court. Under rule 11, the Chief Justice is authorised to pass such orders as may be considered necessary in respect of working of Bench without prejudice to the generality of the rules mentioned above and subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Such order has been issued clarifying as to what cases are to be heard at Circuit Benches and Bench and permanent Bench. Coming back to the facts of the instant case in the previous application, request for hearing from Hyderabad to Karachi was allowed on the basis of affidavit filed by Mumtaz Ahmed on the ground that he apprehended insult and false implication in other cases. At that time it was not noticed perhaps advertantly that proceedings sought to be quashed emanated from a direct complaint which was filed by a private party and notice was not given to that private party who is complainant in the case, as such, order of allowing hearing at Karachi was passed behind his back. Now request is made by the private complainant for transfer of the case and regular hearing of quashment proceedings at Hyderabad. This application is supported by the affidavit of Muhammad Shabbir in which grounds are mentioned that complainant has knee trouble, he was operated in London and is being attended by Doctors at Hyderabad and he is not in a position to travel to Karachi. The main purpose of directing whether hearing should take place at the principal seat or any other Bench is to see the convenience of the parties and if parties concerned have no objection then it can be directed that such hearing can take place at the place suggested in the application. Care should be taken to find out that notice is issued to all the parties which are concerned in such cases particularly when B proceedings arises from direct complaint. In the instant case, the complainant has given valid reasons for hearing of this case at Hyderabad. His request is accepted and the case is transferred to Hyderabad for the reason that it pertains to that Bench and also the Bench is right now available at Hyderabad. M./M‑1225/K Applications accepted.