Find a Lawyer

Criminal Transfer Application No. 444 of 1964, decided on 28th September 1964.

S. 526‑Transfer of criminal case‑Magistrate personally questioning prosecution witnesses during their examination and refusing to stay supple mentary proceedings under S. 107, Cr. P. C. against complainant even after receiving police report in favour of complainant‑No ground for believing Magistrate hostile to prosecution‑Application for transfer dismissed in limine.

Ameer Ahmad Khan for Applicant.

This application for the transfer of his case has been made by complainant Abdur Rahim from the Court of Syed Aftab Hussain, Additional City Magistrate, Karachi.

2. It is, first of all, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant, as given out in this petition, that the learned Magistrate had asked him to compromise the case with the opponents and on his refusal to do so had given him threats of violence and abused him. In his report, the learned trial Magistrate does not admit these allegations. On the other hand, he has explained that at one stage of their trial the opponents had made a request for the adjournment of their case, saying that some talk regarding the compromise had been going on between the two parties and that later on he had been told that the attempts for compromise had actually failed. Beyond that, the learned trial Magistrate does not go. His report does not indicate that it was the applicant who had, at any stage, been asked by him to come to a compromise with the opponents. I see no reason to disbelieve his explanation as given out in his report.

3. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Magistrate had treated the witnesses produced by the applicant rather harshly by questioning them himself in course of their examination in his Court and thus frightened away his other witnesses. There is no indication in his report that the learned Magistrate had done anything of the sort. Even if he had, it would not mean that he was not legally competent to question the witnesses that were produced by the applicant‑complainant. If he had done so, it would not be maintained that he had thereby frightened away his other witnesses,

4. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that while these proceedings were pending, at the instance of Mst. Umar Ellahi, a sister of Mst. Nemat Bi opponent No. 3, proceedings under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, had been instituted against the applicant, his mother and his two cousins. It is further stated in connection with this contention that even after the police officer concerned had reported on the said complaint under section 107 being sent to him, that there was no imminence of any breach of peace, the learned trial Magistrate had chosen to proceed against the persons complained of. According to the learned counsel for the applicant this attitude indicated that he was hostile to the applicant and his relations. That being so, he apprehended that the learned trial Magistrate would not deal with his case on a fair and impartial basis. This contention again does not appeal to me. Merely because he had taken a view different from the one expressed by the police officer concerned in this case, it cannot be inferred that he was particularly prejudiced against the applicant‑complainant or any one of his relations.

5. In view of these considerations, I dismiss this application in limine.

K. B. A. Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.