2001 PLP 739 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus GHULAM SARWAR, ASJ, KASUR and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 739 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Rashid Aziz Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus GHULAM SARWAR, ASJ, KASUR and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 739 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 739 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Rashid Aziz Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 739 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus GHULAM SARWAR, ASJ, KASUR and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nasim Sabir, Additional A.-G. and A.H. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24-5-2000 through which application of the petitioner seeking transfer of the criminal case from the Court of Mr. Ghulam Sarwar, Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the last date of hearing complained that in spite of the direction issued by this Court in its order, dated 6-1-1999, to the trial Court to conclude the trial. within six months' period, trial Court did, not decide the case and even no evidence of witness has been recorded. The petitioner is complainant in 'the said case. A report was called from the learned Additional Sessions Judge who has submitted the same in which it has been stated that the order, dated 6-1-1999 passed by this Court was not brought to his notice either by any of the parties nor the same was officially received in his Court. According to office report, this Court's order, dated 6-1-1999 was transmitted to the High Court on 2-3-1999 which is proper channel as the High Court, thereafter, had to intimate the trial Court about the direction.
3. Be that as it may, it has also been reported by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the complainant party appears to have no interest as the summon issued for appearance of prosecution witnesses were not served or if served, they did not appear therefore, delay if any, was attributable to the complainant himself.
4. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to overcome it by saying that the petitioner has no confidence or faith in the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, case should be transferred. This is a new ground which has been raised during the arguments. We are not inclined to consider this plea in the present proceedings. Suffice it to say that non-compliance of the direction issued by this Court is not on account of inaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, he is directed now to conclude the trial within two months positively and report compliance.
5. The petitioner/complainant is directed to bring this order, to the notice of learned Additional Sessions Judge himself in addition to its transmission through proper channel.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is dismissed with the observations made above. N.H.Q./M-130/S Leave refused.