Find a Lawyer

Miscellaneous Criminal No. 29 of 1952, decided on 14th May, 1952. Transfer application of the case from the Court of Sessions Judge, Mirpur.

S. 526 (1) (a) Reasonable apprehension that Judge may have bias against appellant‑Petitioner's point of view to be kept in mind.

The petitioner apprehended that because, according to him, he had helped actively a certain candidate for election, to State Assembly, who was a rival to the Sessions judge before whom his appeal was pending, he would not have a fair hear ing. The allegation of active help, however, was denied by the Sessions Judge.

Held, that, without casting any slur on the Sessions judge or upon the just decision of appeal by him, it was clear that the petitioner had some apprehension' that the Sessions judge perhaps unconsciously might have some bias against him espe cially when he had now mentioned that he helped a candidate who opposed the Sessions judge in election to the State Assembly and the question was whether it was possible to say that apprehension was not reasonable. To answer that ques tion one has to place oneself in the position of the petitioner and look at the matter from his point of view.

Apprehension in this case declared to be reasonable.

Mumtaz Muhammad, for Petitioner.

Muhammad Sharif, Government Advocate, for Government.

‑This is an application by Abdul Karim who has an appeal pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Mirpur, from the order of Additional District Magis trate convicting him and one Muhammad Rafiq under Section 420 A P C and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for a certain period and fine of certain amount, for the transfer of the appeal from the Court of Sessions Judge. Mirpur, to the Court of Sessions Judge, Poonch and Muzaffarabad.

The two grounds upon which the application is founded are (1) that the petitioner had actively helped one Ch. Ghulam Hussain in electioneering campaign who opposed the Sessions Judge, Mirpur, when the latter was a candidate for election to the State Assembly held in the year 1946‑47 and (2) that local atmosphere to some extent is poisoned against him on account of his being a Mufti and committing the offence with which he is charged.

The Sessions judge has denied that the petitioner had helped Ch. Ghulam Hussain who was opposing him in an elec tion to the State Assembly so far as he knew. The Sessions judge has further stated that he has no bias or ill will against the petitioner and will decide the appeal on merits. The Sessions judge has also refuted the allegation that any official of the District Mirpur is possibly concerned in the success of the case whether as a witness or otherwise and for that reason, it is desirable that the appeal should be heard by the Sessions Judge of other District.

I am quite prepared to accept what the Sessions judge has said in his explanation and it must be clearly understood that the acceptance of the application will not mean casting any slur whatever upon the Sessions Judge or upon the just decision of the appeal by him. But it is clear that the peti tioner has some apprehension that the Sessions judge perhaps unconsciously may have some bias against him, especially when he has now mentioned that he helped Ch. Ghulam Hussain who opposed the Sessions judge in election to the State Assembly and the question which I have to consider is whether it is possible for me to say that apprehension is not reasonable. This question in my judgment is not easy to answer because, the matter does not depend upon the way in which I should regard it myself, I have to try to place myself in the position of the petitioner and look at the matter from his point of view. Having regard to the matter to which I have .referred and looking at it from the point of view of the petitioner, I am not prepared to hold that the apprehension which the petitioner has is an unreasonable one. I am, therefore, of the view that the appeal in the circumstances stated by the petitioner should be heard by the Sessions Judge of Poonch and Muzaffarabad District who is also an Additional Sessions Judge of Mirpur.

The case against the petitioner which resulted in his con viction was that he attested the ration card of several persons as a Mufti of Kotli tehsil to the effect that those persons were refugees and were entitled to draw free rations. So far as Muhammad Rafiq who has been convicted along with the peti tioner, is concerned, the case was that the petitioner attested his ration cards which showed that the number of Muhammad Rafiq's family members was eight while in fact Muhammad Rafiq had only four family members and the attestation of the petitioner enabled Muhammad Rafiq to draw free rations for eight persons instead of four. The petitioner holding the office of Mufti must naturally be held in contempt by every body who had known him on account of his being a party to an action which caused the Government serious loss. In the circumstances, the local atmosphere is to be deemed to some extent poisoned against the petitioner and his apprehension that justice would not be done to him cannot be said to be unfounded. This fact also necessitates that his application for transfer of the appeal to the Court of Sessions Judge, Poonch and Muzaffarabod, should be granted.

For the above reasons, I accept the application and transfer the appeal pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Mirpur to the Court of Sessions Judge, Poonch and Muzaffar abad, who is directed to hear the appeal at Muzaffarabad after giving notice to the appellant and the other convict Muhammad Rafiq of the date of hearing.

A. H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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