2004 PLP 261 (SCMR)
MEHBOOB Ali and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 261 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ |
| Parties | MEHBOOB Ali and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 261 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 261 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 261 (SCMR) (MEHBOOB Ali and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 26th June, 2000.
- Gul Bahar Korai, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 24-4-2000 of High Court of Sindh, Sukkur Bench, passed in Criminal Transfer Application No.7 of 2000).
S. 526
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34/337-A(i)
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)
Transfer of case-- Grievance of the accused was that the Trial Court on the specified date had adjourned all the cases except their case
High Court while dealing with this contention had observed that the Trial Court had been directed to dispose of the matter without delay and its act of not adjourning the matter was in consonance with the direction given by High Court
High Court was also of the opinion that the accused were interested in prolonging the proceedings as much as possible
Accused, according to complainant's counsel, were adopting delaying tactics and were creating hurdles in final disposal of the case on merits
Impugned order of High Court refusing to transfer the case was not open to any exception
Leave to appeal was refused to accused accordingly. Gul Bahar Korai, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.
The petitioners seeks leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against the order dated 24-4-2000 of learned Single Judge, in Chamber, High Court of Sindh, Sukkur Bench, whereby the petitioners' Transfer Application No.7 of 2000 was dismissed.
2. The petitioners are facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 302, 34, 337-A(i), P.P.C. and 13(d) of Arms Ordinance in Crime No-53 of 1998 which was registered at Police Station Daharki. Prior to this transfer application, twice the petitioners had applied for transfer of their case. Transfer Application No. l of 1999 was allowed by consent of the parties and the case was transferred from the Court of Sessions Judge, Ghotki. Now, it is pending for decision before 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ghotki.
3. The plea taken for transfer of the case is that on 7-12-1999, learned trial Court for certain reasons adjourned all the cases except of the petitioners. It is urged that it showed that the trial Court was interested in the matter. Also, it is contended, like other cases, the case of the petitioners should also have been adjourned. Learned High Court, dealing with this contention observed that the trial Court was directed to dispose of the mater without delay and the act of the trial Court not adjourning the matter was in consonance with the direction given by the High Court. The High Court was also of the opinion that the petitioners were interested to prolong the proceedings as much as possible. Learned counsel for the complainant states that the petitioners are adopting delaying tactics and are creating hurdles in final disposal of the case on merits.
4. Under the circumstances, the order of the High Court is not open to exception. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-522/S Leave refused.