1984 P Cr (PLP)

Respondents in person. Kazi Umar Draz for the Complainant. This case was registered at police station 18-Hazari, district Jhang, on an application submitted by Mst. Saban, widow of Muhammad Hayat. After investigation the challan was submitted before the Magistrate, who sent up the same for trial to the Court of Session.

2. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhang has made references under section 10/11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 had not been committed within the jurisdic tion of district Jhang, nor the accused were residing within the area of district Jhang, as such the Courts at Jhang had no jurisdiction to hear the case. It has been suggested that as the offence is stated to have taken place within the limits of district Bhakkar, the case may be transferred to Sessions Judge, Bhakkar.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that Mst. Murid Bibi was married to Dost Muhammad son of Chiragh P.W. as such he was entitled to keep her, in his village which falls within the jurisdiction of district Jhang. He has stated that Muhammad Ashraf accused had prepared a forged Nikahnema in District Bhakkar after having taken away Mst. Murid Bibi and that thereafter he got a habeas corpus petition filed in the High Court by making submission that Mst. Murid Bibi, his wife, had been illegally detained. It is submitted that after the bailiff had recovered Mst. Murid Bibi her mother, Mst. Saban got this case registered. He has urged that the case may be directed to be heard by a Court at Jhang.

4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has supported the request of the learned counsel for the complainant: He has submitted that although the reference has been correctly made but this Court has powers under section 526, Cr.P.C. to direct the trial of any case by any Court of competent jurisdiction within the province. He has pointed out that most of the witnesses in this case are residents of district Jhang and that only 4/5 witnesses belong to district Bhakkar. He has stated that the fact of the accused belonging to Bhakkar is no valid consideration for transferring the case to Bhakkar. The accused-respondents have requested that the case may be transferred per reference. I have considered the averments of the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Assistant Advocate-General. Although legally and factually the reference has been correctly made but keeping in view the fact that most of the witnesses belong for district Jhang and the case was also registered in a Police Station of district Jhang. I think it will be proper if the case is directed to be tried by a Court of district Jhang. In the circumstances, the case is sent back to learned Session Judge, Jhang with a direction that he will either hear the case himself or entrust the same to any Court of competent jurisdiction. This order has been passed keeping in view the expediency for the ends of justice. S.G.D. Case remanded.