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 Petition No. 240 of 1986, decided on 27th July, 1986.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 28‑6‑1986, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 29/T of 1986).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 526‑‑Transfer of criminal case refused by High Court‑‑Grievance that record of proceedings was not being prepared correctly was voiced for first time in transfer application‑‑Other contention that Presiding Officer had influenced District Attorney to give up certain witnesses repelled because it was primarily for District Attorney to decide what witnesses he would produce at trial‑‑Apprehension of petitioner that he would not receive a fair trial not being justified, Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal.
M. Farani, Bar‑at‑Law, Advocate Supreme Court with M..A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Sardar Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court with Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 27th July, 1986.
The petitioner who is a complainant in a pending criminal case registered under section 302, P.P.C. seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 28‑6‑1986 whereby his application seeking transfer of the case from the Court of Ch. Muhammad Aslam Khokhar, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, was rejected.
The occurrence relates to Muzaffargarh District. The trial is taking place at Multan as at the instance of the accused respondent and with the concurrence of the petitioner it was transferred to that district.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the record of the proceedings is not being prepared correctly and faithfully, that the Presiding Officer has influenced the District Attorney to give up a number of witnesses and the petitioner has reasonable apprehension that he will not receive a fair trial.
We have heard the learned counsel and find that the learned Judge in the High Court had called for a report from the Presiding Officer to satisfy himself about the correctness and the nature of the allegations. It is admitted that the grievance about the omissions or incorrect maintenance of record was for the first time voiced in the application for transfer and not earlier. As regards the other ground it is primarily for the District Attorney to decide what witnesses he will produce at the trial and if he takes a decision to give up certain witnesses it cannot be urged that he has acted under the influence/ direction of the Court. The apprehension of the petitioner does not appear to be justified. It is not a fit case for leave to appeal.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer