Transfer of Case

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah, jaifah and causing different types of "ghayr-jaifah, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Transfer of case

Scope

Grouse of the petitioner was that the Sessions Court vide impugned order dated 23.11.2023 had transferred the case for want of jurisdiction to the Judicial Magistrate without any legal justification

Main ground which prevailed upon the Sessions Court for transfer of the case to the Judicial Magistrate was that the injuries were not caused on the vital parts, despite the fact that the accused persons were armed with knives, thus it was held that provisions of S.324 of P.P.C were not attracted in the instant case

Held: Section 324 of P.P.C evidently manifested that if any act was done by anyone with the intention or knowledge that by such act he could be held guilty of committing qatl-i-amd of any person, then he would be punished for a term, which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine and if any hurt is also caused to any person by such offender, he shall also be liable to the punishment provided for such hurt caused by him

Perusal of the Medico-Legal Certificates demonstrated that petitioner had received a stab wound on the right side of his abdomen, whereas injured "MS" had also received a stab wound on the right side of his chest, beside the other injuries, which were obviously on the vital parts and could have caused death due to penetration into any of their organs or result of excessive bleeding, thus the observations of the Sessions Court were misconstrued and contrary to the record

Bare perusal of S.190 (3) of Cr.P.C. clearly enunciated that a Magistrate taking cognizance under subsection (1) of an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session shall, without recording any evidence, send the case to the Court of Session for trial

In the instant case, it was done twice i.e., firstly, when Judicial Magistrate after receipt of the final report under S.173 of Cr.P.C transmitted the case file to the Sessions Court, who on 21.02.2020 framed the charge and then when the case was once again transferred by the Judicial Magistrate on 27.07.2023, thus there was absolutely no occasion for the Sessions Court to have had transferred the case vide impugned order dated 23.11.2023

So be it, the Sessions Court while framing charge on 21.02.2020 indicted the respondents under Ss.324, 337-ADF, 147, 148 & 149 of P.P.C after applying judicious mind, whereafter the said Court had no justification for transferring the case, because ultimately on conclusion of the trial, it could have acquitted the accused respondents from the charge for the indictment of attempt to murder as contemplated under S.324 of P.P.C

Had it been a case of a attack of 'an accused' upon 'a person', then repeating of the blows could have been a ground, but not in the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, where more than four persons were indicted for making assaults with knives, causing stab wounds on the abdomen and chest to the injured persons according to their capability and force, which clearly demonstrated that it could have been a fatal blow

Thus at such a belated stage, transfer of the case for want of jurisdiction was unwarranted

Sessions Court for assumption of jurisdiction had prima facie ample material for proceeding with the trial, thus the Sessions Court had erred in law as well as in facts

Consequently, the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 drawn by the Sessions Court was set aside and the case file was directed to be transferred from the file of Judicial Magistrate to the file of Sessions Court with the direction to proceed with trial in accordance with law on its merit

Petition was allowed, accordingly.

Complainant sought transfer of case from one province to another province on the ground of being a highly sensitive case

Jurisdiction of a Court has to be jealously safeguarded and cannot be ousted, or transfer of a case from the competent Court of jurisdiction cannot be sought on flimsy grounds at the pleasure or sweet will either of the accused or of the prosecutor to the disadvantages and inconvenience of either party

Unless any party seeking transfer of the case from one Anti-Terrorism Court to another can make out a case to establish that it is expedient and in the interest of justice, or where the convenience or safety of the witnesses or the safety of the accused so requires, transfer of any case from one Anti-Terrorism Court to another cannot be allowed

Similarly, if such request is made by the Government, unless it is established that such transfer will be in the interest of justice or expedient for protection and safety of the judges, witnesses or the prosecutors, it cannot be acceded to by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned

In the instant case, none of the said eventuality was attracted, as no material whatsoever had been placed on record to justify the allegation of any security threat, harassment or inconvenience to the accused, witnesses or the Judge of the Anti-Terrorism Courtat "K", whereas, the transfer was being sought on mere allegation of security threat to the prosecutor(s) appointed by the Ministry of Law and Justice Division, through Ministry of Interior, however, without any material to support such allegations

Thus, it appeared that the appointment of prosecutor(s) based at "I" perhaps resulted in inconvenience to such prosecutor(s), who were required to travel to "K" on each date of hearings during pendency of the case before the Anti-Terrorism Court at "K"

In view of said facts and circumstances of the case, attractions none of the ingredients of S.28 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as per record of the case, transfer application, besides being misconceived, appeared to have been filed to delay the conclusion of trial, whereas, transferring the case at such stage would cause serious injury and inconvenience to the accused persons and the witnesses on the one hand, and would also involve serious financial implications, if all the accused persons, their lawyers and the witnesses were to appear before the Anti-Terrorism Court at "I", till finalization of the case, which would amount to denying the fair trial and justice to the accused persons

Transfer application was dismissed accordingly.

Applicant/defendant (husband) sought transfer of suit for dissolution of marriage by way of khula, recovery of dowry articles and medical expenses filed by his wife from one Court to another

Validity

Applicant/defendant couldn't produce any material to satisfy the Court that after remand of the case, Trial Court had refused to allow applicant/defendant to produce the additional evidence on the issue of dowry articles and medical expenses

Mere allegation against Presiding Officer without any substance was no ground to transfer the case particularly Family suit from the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court

In the matters of matrimonial proceedings, it was the convenience of the wife, which was to be considered and given preference over that of the husband

Transfer application being without merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Suit filed against applicant / defendant was decreed ex-parte and Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court declined to set aside the decree

Plea raised by applicant / defendant was that the suit was transferred from one Civil Court to the other and the transferee Court did not issue notice of proceedings

Validity

Trial Court did not commit any irregularity or illegality in not issuing a Court motion notice, when suit was transferred to it from the other Court

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere as applicant / defendant was correctly declared ex-parte by Court after complying the process of service and could not in any manner be considered to have acted illegally or irregularly

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Dispute was with regard to trials of two criminal cases arising out of two FIR registered at two different districts "M" and "C" about abduction of a person from one district and his murder in other

Validity

When an offence was committed in parts in two different areas, or continued to be committed in more local areas, then it was prerogative of either of the Courts to take cognizance of the matter having jurisdiction over any of such areas

Legislation itself had conferred concurrent jurisdiction upon both the Courts to adjudicate upon the matter in respect of the offences which were / had been committed in their respective jurisdiction

On the touchstone of Rule 3 of Chapter 26 of Volume III of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, it was also to be seen as to which Court was more suitable for both the parties

Both the parties and complainant party as well as prosecution witnesses hailed from District "C" therefore the Court who took cognizance of the matter regarding abduction of the deceased was more suitable to also adjudicate upon the matter regarding murder of the abductee

High Court in exercise of jurisdiction/ power as envisaged under S. 526, Cr.P.C. transferred case pending at district "M" to Court at district "C"

Reference was answered accordingly.

Trial Court earlier declined bail to accused but subsequently on same facts bail was allowed by same Judge and only advocate of accused was replaced

Complainant sought transfer of case from Trial Court to some other Court of competent jurisdiction

Validity

Such conduct of Trial Court warranted interference to the extent of transfer application

Documents relied upon showed that another counsel had appeared before Trial Court while granting bail

High Court directed to transfer the case from Trial Court to another Court of competent jurisdiction

Application was allowed accordingly.

Types of bias listed.

Petitioners (applicants under S.24, C.P.C, 1908) sought transfer of case on the basis of alleged statement/utterance made by the opposing side that they would get favour from the Court

Held, that contention of the petitioner did not constitute sufficient ground for transfer of case as they had failed to establish the bias in judge which was not supported by any sort of evidence or some act or expression of judge visible on ground adversely affecting the case

Mere assumption and apprehension could not be entertained as a tangible evidence, therefore, a mere statement could not be made basis for transfer of case

Case would not be transferred as a matter of routine or at the whims of the parties

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court rejecting application of petitioners to transfer their civil suit to another civil court

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Applicant sought transfer of suit filed by her husband in the court of plenary jurisdiction seeking declaration and recovery of gold ornaments to the district where she was residing on the ground that a suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of maintenance was already pending in the said district

Contention of respondent was that the application under S. 25-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, was not maintainable

Validity

Generally, in matrimonial disputes, the forum of convenience for a wife took precedent

Partial cause of action of the suit filed by husband had accrued at the district where his wife was residing

Husband was already travelling from his district to another to contest the suit filed by his wife, therefore, the transfer of his suit would not cause any hardship

High Court converted the transfer application from S. 25-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, into an application under S. 24 of C.P.C. and transferred the suit of husband to the district where his wife was residing

Transfer application was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner apprehending injustice from the court filed a petition for transfer of bail application from that court to another

Held; petitioner had not brought on record any substance to show that fair and impartial proceedings were not possible

Application was dismissed with costs.

Principles settled on the question of transfer of a case from one Court to another detailed.

Adverse judicial orders passed by a Court against a party will not be sufficient ground directing transfer of case from the Court, as aggrieved person has remedy to challenge the orders before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

Judges are presumed to be performing their duties with all honesty and dedication, by knowing that they have been bestowed with a sacred obligation to deliver justice beyond any worldly temptation

To rebut the said presumption strong and exceptional material is required.

Any person who is aggrieved can file petition before the High Court under S. 526, Cr.P.C. if there appears reasonable apprehension of injustice being done due to the conduct of the courts subordinate to the High Court

Such grievances must be agitated before the High Court but should be supported by legal requirements of law.

Complainant sought transfer of case from one district to another on the ground that the accused was a landlord of the locality, who had support of ruling party, as such, he was continuously harassing and pressurizing him to withdraw the criminal case or to change the version

Scope

Complainant had not approached the concerned police with any complaint

No allegations were levelled against the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court

Apprehension that the complainant would not get a fair and just trial could not be considered for the simple reason that it had to be established through cogent material which factor was lacking in the case

Trial Court was directed to ensure safety of the complainant and his witnesses, at the time of hearing of the case, through all modes of security as provided under the law so that the witnesses could depose their testimony with ease, and that too, in a stress-free environment

Transfer application was dismissed.

Accused persons were facing trial before Special Judge Anti-Corruption who after completion of trial, transferred case to Accountability Court for decision

Accountability Court assumed jurisdiction and convicted and sentenced accused persons

Validity

Transfer of case from any other court to Accountability Court and its assumption of jurisdiction in a manner not provided in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was not valid

While making a decision on such an issue of fundamental nature accused persons were required to be heard but no such effort was made at any level

Accused persons were facing trial in offenses less stringent in punishment and then suddenly without being extended an opportunity of hearing they were made to face trial under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 which carried harsher punishments

Such an approach was not only against natural norms of justice but resulted in abridgment of right of accused persons to a fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Transfer of case in such manner had translated in curtailment of powers of Chairman NAB or an officer of NAB acting on his behalf provided under S.18 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 which had stipulated a preliminary scrutiny of received material/complaint by him and forming an opinion to initiate proceedings and referring matter against accused for inquiry and investigation

Taking cognizance of offences and assuming jurisdiction by Accountability Court was illegal and proceedings that followed were coram non judice

High Court set aside conviction and sentence passed by Accountability Court and remanded matter to Special Court Anti-Corruption to proceed with the matter

Special Court Anti-Corruption had no jurisdiction to refer matter to Accountability Court under S.16-A of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner was accused facing trial and his grievance was that after transfer of case to Accountability Court, NAB authorities removed his name from the list of accused persons but on the direction of Accountability Court his name was included as accused

Validity

Original transferred case was the Reference whereas after further investigation a Supplementary Reference was filed in which National Accountability Bureau (NAB) could not have exonerated a person who was accused in original Reference, in the manner that it did

If NAB intended to exonerate an accused, it could have resorted to the provisions of S. 31-B of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which had specifically provided for the procedure to be followed in case NAB wanted to withdraw a prosecution

If petitioner was of the view that charge against him was groundless or that there was no possibility of a conviction he could have invoked S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.

Accountability Court could not have directed NAB to include name of petitioner as accused in Reference

NAB could not have exonerated petitioner through Supplementary Reference

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Applicant sought transfer of his case from one district to another on the grounds that he was Minister of the Province and that serious threats of dire consequences had been extended to him by the complainant

Applicant had alleged the threatening messages from the complainant but he had not produced copies of the messages or report from the concerned quarter

Mere mentioning in the application that threatening messages were delivered, without cogent reasons, could not be considered

Applicant had not produced any convincing material nor mentioned such authority to which he approached to lodge the complaint

Simply on apprehension of the applicant for danger to his life a murder case could not be transferred

Reason given by the applicant for his security had no sanctity

Application, being devoid of merits, was dismissed.

Transfer of case cannot be claimed as a matter of routine or at the wish of the parties unless it is apparent on the face of record that parties seeking the transfer cannot get fair and just treatment or trial.

Case not to be transferred from the court of competent jurisdiction unless the allegations/grounds seeking transfer of the case are supported by strong cogent reasons or convincing evidence.

Complainant lodged FIR against accused persons for causing qatl-i-amd, attempt to qatl-i-amd and causing loss to property

Accused persons were aggrieved of order passed by Anti-terrorism court whereby their application for transfer of case to court of ordinary jurisdiction was dismissed

Validity

Motive for alleged offences was nothing but personal enmity and private vendetta

Motivation on part of accused persons was not to overawe or intimidate government, etc., or to destabilize society at large or to advance any sectarian cause, etc.

Intention of accused persons had not depicted or manifested any 'design' or 'purpose' as contemplated by S. 6(1)(b) or (c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Actus reus attributed was not accompanied by necessary mens rea so as to brand actions as "terrorism" triable exclusively by a special court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

High Court set aside order passed by Anti-terrorism Court as same was without lawful authority and of no legal effect

High Court accepted application filed by accused persons under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and declared their case to be triable by court of ordinary jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Testing the case on the above touchstone, it did not fall in any of the categories of bias as laid down in Pakistan Newspaper Society v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 1

Case could not be transferred as a matter of routine or at the whims of the parties

Administration of justice required that litigant should have confidence in the judicial system

Application could be filed for transfer of a case when a party had sufficient reasons, grounds and evidence in his/her possession regarding pecuniary interest, bias of judicial officer, such elements were not available in the present case

Allegations levelled revealed that no substantial evidence had been attached/annexed along with the application for transfer of the case

Most of the allegations were of vague and evasive nature having no substance

Apprehension of not getting justice from the hands of the Court could not be a ground for transfer of case

One had to prove bias through trustworthy evidence

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Accused persons had planned and robbed the deceased at his shop with firearms and robbery took place in broad daylight in bazaar where members of public were present and when owner of shop resisted the robbery, he was shot in cold blood in front of members of public

When other members of public tried to intervene, they were warned off by accused persons, threatening them with pistols

Another person who tried to intervene was again shot dead in cold blood by accused persons in front of public

While making their escape good, accused persons deliberately made aerial firing in order to scare off and terrorize public and in particular, minority community to whom victims belonged

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as same was based upon valid and sound reasons and was in consonance with provisions of relevant law

Accused persons failed to point out any legal infirmity in same as act of terrorism was carried out by accused persons during robbery, murders and aerial firing and same fell within purview of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

No reason was assigned by Sessions Judge for ordering transfer of the case from one to another District, which was against the spirit of S. 24-A, General Clauses Act, 1897

High Court set aside the order with the direction to the Sessions Judge to pass the order afresh, in detail, explaining the reasons for transferring the case from one to another court, after providing chance of hearing to all the concerned

Revision application was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioners were accused facing trial before Accountability Court and their application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. was dismissed by Trial Court

Plea raised by petitioners was that after transfer of case from court of Special Judge Customs, further investigation could not be made and supplementary reference could not be filed and that filing of different references would amount to double jeopardy

Validity

National Accountability Bureau (NAB) could file supplementary reference especially in cases where matter had been transferred under S. 16-A of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and further inquiry/investigation would be necessary to uncover further evidence as case had not originally been inquired into/investigated by NAB

Present was not a case of double jeopardy and Art. 13 of the Constitution was not attracted as all references related to separate containers, separate allegations and separate amounts of loss

One reference only related to illegality claiming sales tax refund whereas, other references concerned different allegations and in some cases they were different companies

Bureau was entitled to file separate references in respect of each container which as had been done in other cases

Provisions of S. 17(d) was only directory in nature and not mandatory, even if it was found to be applicable

For an application to succeed under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. it must be shown that charge was groundless or there was no probability of accused being convicted

Addition of two witnesses who were granted pardon on their statements were recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. and other material on record, petitioners failed to show that there was no probability of them being convicted

Constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Suit for maintenance allowance of the minor filed by mother and guardian petition moved by father pending at different districts

Convenience of the mother and minor

Scope

Petitioner/mother contended that it was inconvenient for her and the minor to appear before court in another district

Validity

Record revealed that the petitioner/mother of the minor was resident of Tehsil "J" and as such it was quite inconvenient for her to appear before the Family Court, "M" to contest the guardian petition

For adjudication of the guardian petition, presence of the minor before the Court was also needed and it would be inconvenient, difficult and hazardous for the health of minor to appear before the Guardian Judge at "M"; it was not easy for a lady to travel alone to another district to pursue and defend the case; she would have to bear travelling expenses also so, in family matters, while adjudicating transfer application convenience of lady had to be given preference

High Court observed that it was always desirable that family suits were to be tried, heard and adjudicated by one and the same Court to avoid conflicting judgments

High Court withdrew the guardian application from Guardian Judge, "M" and entrusted the same to the Family Court, at "J", where the suit for maintenance allowance of minor was already pending

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Transfer of sessions cases were sought from place "M" to place "T" on the ground that both the parties hailed from place "T" and the incident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of court at place "T"

Validity

Record transpired that earlier the sessions cases were withdrawn from the court at place "T" and were transferred to the court at place "M"

Admittedly, said orders had not been called in question by the applicant

No progress in the cases before the transferee Trial Court at place "M" had been made due to delay caused by both the parties by seeking adjournments on one pretext or the other

Record reflected that applicant party was instrumental in delay of the trial before the court at place "M"

Circumstances established that no case for re-transfer of the cases from the court at place "M" to the court at place "T" had been made out and the applicant by filing the present application had made an attempt to hamper the proceedings of the cases

Application for re-transfer of cases was dismissed in circumstances.

Adverse judicial order passed against a party would not be sufficient ground to justify the transfer of the case from one Trial Court to another

Aggrieved party had remedy to challenge the said adverse order before the higher forum

Application for transfer of case was dismissed accordingly.

Circumstances when High Court could transfer case or try the same itself.

Issue of bias in a judge was a very serious matter and in very least cogent and specific particulars thereof must be pleaded by an applicant and same could be bolstered with plausible collaboration

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as unmerited transfer of a case from one court to another would tantamount to expression of no confidence in the Judge

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Transfer of a matter from one Court to another could only be granted in exceptional circumstances, where it was shown that the same would be in the interests of justice.

Under S.24, C.P.C. when a matter was transferred, such matter would proceed from the point at which it was transferred, unless otherwise directed.

Territorial jurisdiction of Trial Court, before whom the suit sought to be transferred was pending, had to be determined before the suit was transferred

Suit could only be transferred under S.24, C.P.C., from a Court competent to try it

Territorial competency/jurisdiction of Trial Court at place "M" was a contentious issue, which could not be determined in such proceedings

High Court directed that Trial Court at place "M" should first determine question of its territorial jurisdiction before proceeding further in the matter

Application was dismissed accordingly.

Superior Court cannot pass an order of transfer of suit under S.24, C.P.C., unless the Court from which transfer of suit is sought to be made has pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to try.

Upon defendant's own showing, Civil Courts at place "B" did not have jurisdiction in the matter, therefore, application under section 24, C.P.C. was not competent

Defendant could first move application under O.VII, R.10, C.P.C. for return of plaint before Trial Court at place "B"

High Court directed Trial Court at place "B" to first decide question of territorial jurisdiction, if such application was filed

Application was dismissed accordingly.

Case had been sought to be transferred to another District on the grounds that accused would not be adequately and properly defended on account of alleged influence of the complainant party, who had extended threats to him and that accused could not engage the counsel of his choice in view of said influence

No proof of any threats allegedly caused to the accused or his other family members had been shown

Accused had not brought to the notice of Trial Court about such situation

Record of Trial Court showed that accused himself had submitted an application for withdrawal of power of his counsel and since then, he had not engaged any counsel

Case could not be transferred on such vague grounds

Application for transfer of case was dismissed accordingly.

High Court observed that Presiding Officers were equally to be protected from frivolous transfer applications in order to achieve the transparent even-handed justice so that one of the litigant might not be in a position to overawe them

Cases should not be transferred merely on the basis of suppositions, unfounded and conjectural apprehensions

Adverse order passed against a party would not be a sufficient ground for transfer of the case as aggrieved person had remedy to challenge the said order

Nothing was on record that trial Judge was either prejudiced or biased against the defendant which might justify the transfer of the suit

No illegality or irregularity had been committed by the District Judge while dismissing the transfer application

Trial Court was directed to decide the suit within three months

Revision was dismissed in limine.

Matter was referred by the Supreme Court to High Court for determination as to whether the trial in the case was to be conducted by the Judicial Magistrate or the High Court

Record showed that accused was a senior judicial officer (Addl. District and Sessions Judge) and co-accused was his wife

Victim was a minor child aged about 9/10 years and her parents were of no means

One of the allegations against the accused persons was that they had paid a lump sum amount to the parents of victim and kept her as a maid for doing domestic odd jobs

Victim was recovered from the accused persons under peculiar circumstances on the basis of pictures in circulation, of her battered condition, on social media

Matter was pending before Judicial Magistrate, who was subordinate to the accused

Two senior judicial officers, allowed bail before arrest to the accused, which apparently helped their colleague

Validity

Where a fair and impartial inquiry or trial could not be held in any subordinate criminal court or where transfer of case was expedient for the ends of justice, High Court could order any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before High Court

Said power/discretion could be exercised by High Court on inter alia its own initiative

Circumstances and facts of the present case established that impartial or fair trial was not possible before the Judicial Magistrate as the said court was subordinate to the accused

High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders provided that where it was likely that Judicial Magistrate or a Judge might be partial, the matter be transferred

Circumstances of the present case, being sufficient for transfer of the matter, High Court directed that the case be transferred from the court of Judicial Magistrate to the High Court for trial

Order accordingly.

On report of the lower court, on application of a party interested or on its own initiative.

Human Rights Activists sought transfer of case alleging that fair and impartial trial could not take place and that transfer was expedient for the ends of justice

Opponents contended that petitioners were not a "party interested", hence had no locus standi in the matter

Validity

Petitioners had no locus standi in the matter as they being Human Rights Activists could not be regarded as interested party within meaning of S. 526, Cr.P.C.

Petition for transfer of case was dismissed accordingly.

Merely because adverse judicial order had been passed against accused persons would not solely be sufficient ground justifying transfer of case from one court to another court

If accused person had any grievance against the adverse orders, they had remedy to challenge same before the higher forum

While exercising discretion to transfer a case a balance had to be struck in order to ensure that the cases were not transferred merely on the basis of supposition, unfounded and conjectured apprehensions

Merely apprehensions without tangible evidence would not be sufficient for transfer of a case.

Transfer of case under S.16-A of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, is deemed to be a reference under S. 18 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

National Accountability Bureau cannot exonerate any person listed as accused.

Authorities transferred case of assessee from Regional Tax Office to Large Tax Unit (LTU) in respective area but it was again transferred to Regional Tax Office

Plea raised by assessee was that re-transfer order was passed without issuing any notice and granting any opportunity of hearing

Validity

Generally, office orders did not require opportunity of hearing to be granted to persons concerned

After transfer of jurisdiction by authorities case of assessee was being proceeded by LTU, as was clear from various letters appended with petition

Propriety demanded that before passing order in question, opportunity of hearing should have been granted to assessee as its case was the only one being re-transferred to Regional Tax Office

Even in administrative matters which adversely affect rights of a person, principles of natural justice were to be complied with

Authorities under S. 209 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, Ss. 30 & 31 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, and S. 29 of Federal Excise Act, 2005, did not have absolute jurisdiction to transfer or re-transfer cases

High Court set aside the order passed by authorities

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Distance between two places was so far that wife along with her babies could not travel and appear before the court at place "X" easily

Family cases should be tried by one and the same court at the place where wife was residing to avoid any conflicting judgment

Suit filed by husband was withdrawn and entrusted to the Family Court at place "X" for adjudication in accordance with law

Application for transfer of case was accepted in circumstances.

Offence having been committed in the area of Police Station at place 'C', FIR stood registered against accused and their trial was being held at place 'C'

On the application of accused, trial court at place 'C' to which case was entrusted, transferred case to the court at place 'S'

Complainant had filed petition under S.526, Cr.P.C. for transfer of case in court at place 'C'

Accused were indicted for murder of two persons, it was genuine concern of the complainant and the witnesses that their life would be in danger if they had to go to place 'S' on various dates of hearing

Offence having been committed at place 'C', if the trial was to be concluded swiftly, it would be convenient for the complainant and his witnesses to appear at place 'C'

Other FIR had also been registered against accused, and their trial in that case was being held at place 'C'

Accused apprehended that, if their trial would be held at place 'C', they would be done to death by the complainant party

Apprehension of accused persons was baseless, as there was no evidence to substantiate their allegations/ apprehension

Option as granted by Notification No. 7886 RHC/MIT dated 25-5-1999, was to be exercised before the case was sent up by the Magistrate for trial before the Sessions Judge, but no such wish was expressed by accused before the Magistrate nor such demand was made before the Sessions Judge.

Complainant sought transfer of case from Trial Court on the plea that he had lost confidence upon the court as pre-arrest bail to accused was confirmed through a police tout

Validity

Bail order passed by Trial Court was fully justified and complainant did not assail the same before any court, nor even name of the tout who purportedly ensured confirmation of bail to accused was disclosed

With such simple and bald allegation, just on the account of apprehension or fear that complainant would not get justice from Trial Court, without there being any proof in such regard, case could not be transferred

Judicial officers were expected and presumed to be performing their duties with all honesty and dedication by knowing that they had been bestowed with sacred obligation to deliver justice beyond any worldly temptation

Interference by High Court in working of Trial Court, on fallacious grounds would give rise to sense of insecurity amongst Judicial Officers and in such eventuality Judicial Officers might not be able to work with required vigor

High Court asserted that motivated attempts of parties for their personal gains, levelling false allegations against Judicial Officer, should be curbed

Transfer of case from Trial Court was declined

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Applicant and co-accused were present on bail and sought adjournment on the ground that their counsel was busy before the High Court

Possibility that the Judge might have developed bias against the applicant and co-accused could not be ruled out

Transfer application was allowed and case was transferred.

Main ground for transfer of case, was that due to friendly terms of relative of accused with the Sessions Judge concerned, there was a reasonable apprehension that Trial Court would not act fairly and impartially

Said ground for transfer of case was not sufficient

Transfer of case could not be claimed as a matter of routine, and at the wishes of any litigant, unless it was apparent on the face of record that party seeking transfer of the case, could not get fair and just treatment at the hands of Judge from whose court the transfer of the case was sought

Applicant seeking transfer of case, should seek transfer of case with cogent and plausible reasons

Self-procured mistrust and expression of having no trust, or losing confidence in the court, merely based on general and vague allegations, was hardly sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under S.526, Cr.P.C.

Petitioner having not been able to point out any justification for interference of Supreme Appellate Court in the impugned order passed by Chief Court, whereby application for transfer of case was dismissed.

Interim challan was submitted against accused before the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, mentioning commission of offence under S.201, P.P.C.

Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court while deciding bail application filed by accused observed that material on record actually disclosed an offence of harbouring the suspect under S.21-J of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and interim challan was accordingly amended

Plea of accused that case should be transferred to some other judge, as the present Judge had a bias against him because of the opinion expressed by him at bail stage with regard to interim challan; that because accused had in the past (some 13 years ago) allegedly escaped from the court of the Judge in question, and that because a co-accused in the present case was granted bail by the Judge by observing that co-accused was entitled to bail as accused, who had a more serious role under S.21-J of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was already granted bail

Validity

Judicial observations made by a Judge at bail stage with respect to commission of alleged offence in interim challan were a lawful act, not suffering from any illegality or excess of jurisdiction

Allegations of bias made by accused in the present case thus had no nexus with bias

Alertness demonstrated by the Judge in the present case at pre-trial stage in order to focus the controversy on the relevant facts and allegation was not an indication of pre-disposition or bias

Nothing on record suggested that incident of accused's escape from court some 13 years ago played any role in the bail order

Reference made by Judge to role of accused while granting bail to co-accused was meant for comparative purposes to grant bail and not a reflection of any pre-disposition towards the accused

Application for transfer of case to another court was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff was that he had lost faith in the Trial Court as court was extending lenient view in favour of defendant

Validity

Plaintiff wanted to linger on the matter and instead of producing evidence he had been filing different applications

No arbitrariness was found in exercise of discretion by the District Judge

District Judge was administrative head of lower judiciary and management and assignment of cases was his sole prerogative

Interference into his functions on flimsy grounds would shatter the confidence of lower judiciary

Revisional jurisdiction in favour of a litigant who had misused the process of law could not be exercised

Revision was dismissed in limine.