Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Trusted direct lawyer access
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

☎ Phone and WhatsApp access ⚖ Verified lawyer directory 🔒 Secure payment
⚡ Connect with 10 Lawyers for Rs 1,000
Pay once. Open contact numbers for lawyers matching your legal need.

OURANGZEB ALIAS RANGOO versus THE STATE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CR PC) Section 497 Contempt Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 302/34 Guaranteed to guarantee that a prosecution witness was not involved in hurting or beating the victim. While another witness assigned her part of the strike. Cherry's dead medical evidence does not imply that the knife allegedly reached the deceased by means of two pieces of ammunition recovered from the accused, and that it has not been found that the accused's blood was not stained. Distinguished from that involved by the prosecution witness. The dead body was assigned to the knife with a knife wound that was allowed under the circumstances
1987 M L D 1228

[Karachi]

Before Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J

BADAL and another--Petitioners versus

THE STATE--Respondent

Criminal Transfer Application No.33 of 1986, decided on 4th December, 1986.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

---S. 526--Transfer of case--No allegation worth consideration made against Court that it would not act fairly and impartially in the matter- Transfer of case refused.

Muhammad Nawaz v. Ghulam Qadir and 3 others P L D 1973 SC 327; Munawar Ali Khan v. Najam Abbas and 7 others P L D 1979 Lah. 346 and Bhura Khan v. The State P L D 1962 (W.P.) Kar. 678 ref.

JUDGMENT

This is an application for transfer of case pending in the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The facts of the case are that two persons came to the jewellery shop owned by Qayum Nusrat and robbed the complainant's of the jewellery ornaments and in the transaction also killed one Sattar Bandhani. Transfer application has been moved on the ground that lot of agitation was made by the jewellers in particular and businessmen in general regarding the robbery that had taken place. There was a wholesale strike. In view of the insurance given by the administration and to cool down the sentiment of the agitating public the present applicants who were in custody with authorities at Karachi in connection with several other cases instituted against the applicant were shifted to Hyderabad and the trial started. It is further stated that the applicants apprehend that they would not get justice from the trial Court in the circumstances of the case,

3. Parawise comments were called from the trial Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has refuted all the allegations that fair trial would not be given to the applicants.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a number of cases are pending against the applicants in Courts of Karachi but preference has been given to the present case and it shows that the administration is bent upon to get the conviction of the applicants. Now the case is being tried by an Additional Session's Judge and there is no allegation that he would not do justice or he is under the influence of the executive authorities.

The learned counsel for the applicants has referred to the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. Ghulam Qadir and i others P L D 1973 SC 327 but the authority is in apt. It has been held in this case that transfer of a criminal case from a Court of competent jurisdiction is justified only if there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the party concerned that the Court would not be able to act fairly and impartially in the matter. There is no allegation worth the matte consideration that the Court would not act fairly ands impartially

The next case cited by the learned counsel is Munawar Ali Khan v. Najam Abbas and 7 others P L D 1979 Lah. 346. The facts are distinguishable. In this case it has been observed that atmosphere at place of occurrence and trial most unsafe and uncongenial and witnesses not in position of deposing correctly before the Court. In this case both parties wielding considerable influence in district and on that account large number of their supporters likely to visit Court premises and in these circumstances the case was transferred.

Learned counsel has also referred to the case of Bhura Khan v. The State P L D 1962 (W.P.) Kar. 678. In this case it has been observed that District Magistrate displaying great zeal and taking undue interest in prosecution of proceedings against accused. In this case the case was pending in the Court of S.D.M. and, therefore, the case was transferred but in the present case the case is pending in the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge and it will be disposed of by an Additional Sessions Judge.

5. None of the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid authorities exist in the present case, It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that speedy trial must be held in each case. The case is being tried by an Additional Sessions Judge against whom there is no allegation. I see not reason to transfer the case to Karachi.

The application is dismissed.

M.Y.H./B-28/K Petition 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
immigration advocates phone number from Ghuzdar lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.