Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑30 of 1967, decided on 25th January 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 1st May 1967, in Criminal Transfer Application No. 43 of 1967).
S. 526‑Transfer of criminal case‑Bare statement of accused that Special Judge during course of trial called accused a "fraud"‑Not enough for ordering transfer of case‑‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
S. Asghar Ashfaq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Vakil Ahmad Kidwai, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State
‑‑‑‑The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan at Karachi, refusing to transfer a case from the Court of Special Judge, Karachi, to some other Court.
The petitioner is being tried by Special Judge, Karachi, for an offence under section 409, P. P. C. The hearing of the case has been concluded. The accused sought transfer of the case on the grounds:
(i) that during hearing of the case on 26‑4‑67 the Judge remarked that the accused was a fraud and that on the next date of hearing, i.e. 29‑4‑67, he repeated the said remark, and
(ii) that on 29‑4‑67 he arbitrarily refused prayer for adjourn ment on the ground of illness of the accused, cancelled his bail and issued non‑bailable warrants against him un the same day, as soon as a medical certificate was filed in support of the illness of the accused, the Special Judge cancelled the non‑bailable warrants. Hence, the learned Judge rightly pointed out that "No fault can therefore be found with the learned Special Judge". The learned Single Judge was also unable to accept the oral allegation against the Presiding Officer that he had called the accused a fraud.
The learned counsel has contended that the above remark of the Special Judge has caused apprehension in the mind of the accused that he would not get a fair trial. In a case of this nature this Court ordinarily does not interfere with the order of the High Court. The petitioner's case is solely based on his oral allegation. The Court before accepting it must be fully satisfied that hi statement is so strongly corroborated by other circumstances that ,4 no reasonable person could possibly doubt its correctness. In the absence of any such corroboration the learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to accept the oral allegation of the accused.
We, therefore, see no ground for interference and dismiss this petition.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer