Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 3/T and 4/T of 1986, decided on 15th February, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 526‑‑Transfer of criminal cases‑‑Petitioners having failed to avail services of a lawyer of their choice allegedly due to influence of one of accused who happened to be a local lawyer‑‑Cases transferred from District 'C' and entrusted to District Magistrate of District 'R' for further entrustment to some Magistrate of competent jurisdiction of his district, in view of facts and circumstances of case.
Munawar Ali Khan v. Najam Abbas and 7 others P L D 1979 Lah. 346; Bakhtawar v. Muhammad Ali and 3 others 1982 P Cr. L J 136; Allah Dawaya v. The State and others 1983 P Cr. L J 2224 Lah. and Maru Khan and others v. Crown P L D 1949 Bal. 15 ref.
Tariq Azam Chaudhry for Petitioners.
Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No.1.
Suleman Bhai Chohan for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th February, 1986.
This order will dispose of two transfer applications i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous 4/T of 1985 and Criminal Miscellaneous 3/T of 1986 seeking the transfer of a private complaint entitled Muhammad Ishfaq v. Faiz Rasool and 7 others under sections 148 and 325/506/149, P.P.C. and the case State v. Zamurrad Khan and others under sections 147, 148, 307/452/149, P.P.C. from the Court of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti, R.M. Chakwal to a Court of some other district.
2. The transfer in the complaint case has been sought on the ground that Abdur Rasool, one of the respondents (whose brother Inayat Rasool got the above‑said case registered with the police) who is an accused person in the complaint case being an advocate and a Member of the Local Bar has succeeded in creating an atmosphere where the local lawyers have shown their reluctance to give legal aid to the petitioner in the private complaint and the accused persons in the other case. Malik Safdar Hussain, Advocate a Senior Member of Chakwal Bar who was engaged in both the cases to prosecute the complaint case and defend in the cross‑case has already withdrawn his legal assistance. The petitioners in both the transfer applications have become helpless and have failed to avail the services of a lawyer of their own choice. The newly‑elected President of the 'Local Bar happens to be a political opponent of Haji Mehr Khan petitioner. He is also exercising his influence against the petitioners in both the transfer applications.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners alongwith the grounds of transfer has submitted that one of the petitioners namely, Haji Sakhi Muhammad contacted four counsel from Rawalpindi namely, Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Agha Aziz Khan, Malik Muhammad Rafiq Khan and Ehsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Advocate has demanded a fee which is beyond the means of the petitioners to arrange for. The other three Advocates have stated that it is not convenient for them to conduct the cases at Chakwal. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioners apprehend that they will not be having a fair trial at Chakwal as the Court will not .be able to resist the influence from the Bar against the petitioners. The learned counsel has relied upon Munawar Ali Khan v. Najam Abbas and 7 others P L D 1979 Lah. 346, Bakhtawar v. Muhammad Ali and 3 others 1982 P Cr. L J 136 and Allah Dawaya v. the State and others 1983 P Cr. L J 2224 in support of his arguments.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents in both the applications has resisted the transfer of the said cases and has maintained that no ground exists for the transfer of the cases. The petitioners can make some arrangement for any counsel to appear at Chakwal and the Court at Chakwal cannot be taken as open to any influence. The apprehensions of the petitioners are unfounded. He has also submitted that non -availability of a counsel is no ground for the transfer of the cases. In this behalf he has relied upon Maru Khan and others v. Crown P L D 1949 Baluchistan 15, in this case seeking transfer from Zhob to a Court in Quetta it was maintained that no pleader was available either at Hindubagh or at Fort Sandeman and as the train service was only bi‑weekly between Quetta and Fort Sandeman, so that was to be inconvenient and expensive for the petitioners in the case to take a pleader from Quetta to Hindubagh on each date of hearing. It was held that the ground did not obviously bring the case within the purview of section 526, Cr.P.C.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances obtaining in both the cases titled Muhammad Ashfaq v. Faiz Rasool and 7 others under sections 148 and 325/306/149, P.P.C. and State v. Zamurrad Khan and others under sections 147, 148 and 507/452/149, P.P.C. are transferred from A the Court of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti R.M., Chakwal to the District Magistrate, Rawalpindi to be entrusted to any Magistrate otherwise competent to try the cases.
S.G.D. Cases transferred.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer