1969L3053 (PLP)

Mahmood Akhtar Qureshi for the State. Barkat Ali, who is a complainant in case State v. Amir and 4 others, under section 302/34, P. P. C., has made this petition under section 526, Cr. P. C., praying that the case be taken away from the Court of Qazi Ghulam Dastgir, Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, and entrusted to a Court of competent jurisdiction. The grounds on which the transfer is sought are as follows:

(i) That Amir along with his another relation, was tried under section 302/34, P. P. C. for the murder of one Bashir by the same Additional Sessions Judge and was acquitted along with the other co‑accused in the year 1968. (ii) That on 3rd March 1969, the petitioner applied to the learned Judge that he was applying to the High Court for the transfer of the said case, but he proceeded to record the evidence of four prosecution witnesses. (iii) That Jafar and Jan Muhammad are the sons of maternal uncle of the trial Judge and are the party‑men of Amir accused. It is also said that the trial Judge owns some land in village Jatari Khoona and the land of the accused is adjacent to his land.

2. A copy of this petition was sent to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for such remarks as he thought fit to make with reference to the allegations contained in the petition and the affidavit. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his report has admitted that on 25th April 1968, Amir along with others were acquitted for the alleged murder of Bashir. He stated that he was not bound to stay the proceedings in view of section 526(9), Cr. P. C., and that in case, the complainant was interested he should have moved the High Court for the transfer of the case earlier. He also stated that he had no land in the district at present. As to his relationship with Jafar he stated that he is a brother of the deceased husband of his widowed sister, while Jan Muhammad is not related to him, but he was not aware if they have any connection with Amir accused.

3. The mere fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge in another criminal case acquitted one of the accused cannot be held to indicate that the complainant‑petitioner will not have a fair trial. In view of the provisions of subsection (9) of section 526, Cr. P. C., it was not imperative for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to stay the proceedings. The other allegations having been denied, there is no evidence to warrant the transfer of the case.

4. This application was supported by the learned counsel for the State, but, in my view, there are not sufficient grounds which would justify the transfer of the case. The result is that the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.