P L D 1963 (W (PLP)

Kazi Mamoon and Ibadatyar Khan for Respondent. This is an application for transferring the case pending against the applicant under section 500, P. P. C. before the Additional District Magistrate, Hyderabad. The grounds are (1) That there have been about 15 hearings of the case, and that on most of these hearings the complainant remained absent and the case has been adjourned. (2) That it would be convenient for the parties and the witnesses if the case was transferred to Karachi. It is urged that out of 8 witnesses named in the complaint 4 come from Karachi and 3 come from Hyderabad and one comes from Mirpurkhas. The applicant also says that in case charge is framed against him his defence witnesses will come from Karachi. (3) That undue favour was being given to the complainant in view of his status e.g., the case was adjourned from 1‑4‑61 due to the absence of the complainant to 1‑5‑61 but on 12‑4‑61 the complainant wrote that he would not come and the case was post‑dated to 3‑7‑

61. Again the complainant wrote a letter that he would not able to be present on 3‑7‑61, the Magistrate on 18‑5‑61 adjourned the case without intimation to the accused to 14‑7‑

61. The case was again adjourned before the hearing on 14‑7.61 to 18‑9‑61 at the request of the complainant.

2. So far as the question of convenience is concerned, the matter, in my opinion is closed by order dated 21‑11‑60 by Mr. Justice A. R. Khan in Criminal Revision No. 393/60 where the same grounds about the convenience of the witnesses were considered and rejected. I agree that the ground of convenience does not hold good. 'Two of the witnesses coming from Hyder abad and Mirpurkhas are Government officials and they could not come to Karachi without taking the permission of the department. One witness from Mirpurkhas is an Advocate and it would be a great inconvenience to him to be asked to go to Karachi for the case.

3. After reading the case diary one cannot help coming to the conclusion that the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion properly in giving adjournment after adjournment to the complain ant. It is true that the complainant is a high Government official, and he could not attend the Court without detriment to the public work. At the same time the accused cannot be put under the anxiety and expense of a prolonged proceedings because the complainant cannot attend the proceedings. I think the attitude of the Magistrate in giving adjournment freely may have caused a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused that he may not get fair justice. This may be so, in spite of the fact that the accused has been exempted from personal appearance in Court.

4. The case is transferred from the Court of the A. D. M. to the Court of the D. M. who is requested to dispose of the case himself without reasonable delay. R. B. A. Case transferred.