THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Transfer Application No.S-33 of 2024
Applicant: Imran Ali alias Imran Khan, son of Badaruddin Junejo, through Mr. Jamal Nasir Bullo, Advocate.
The State: Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.
Respondent No.2. Ghulam Muhammad son of Allah Bux Khakhrani present in person.
Date of Hearing: 11.09.2024
Date of Order: 11.09.2024
O R D E R
KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J.-Through instant Criminal Transfer Application, applicant seeks withdrawal of Sessions Case No.299 of 2023 (Re-State v/s. Imran Ali alias Imran Khan and others), emanating from Crime No.15/2022, registered at Police Station Keti Mumtaz, from the board of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero and its transfer to any other court having jurisdiction in the District or Division Larkana.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the case may be transferred on the grounds that on 02.10.2022, a lady, namely Mst. Rubeena was allegedly murdered and in the station diary the name of the applicant/accused was not mentioned but after six hours when F.I.R. was lodged, he was implicated, that the applicant/accused obtained pre-arrest bail from the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.10.2022; that on 05.06.2023 charge was framed and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial and summons against the P.Ws were issued so also letter for the production of the case property, but from 05.06.2023 to 26.10.2023, neither the case property was received by the trial Court nor any P.W except the complainant put their appearance; however, the accused was compelled to proceed with the matter; that on 25.09.2023, the complainant alongwith two eye-witnesses appeared before the trial court but the property was not produced and junior to the defence counsel intimated the learned Presiding Officer about preoccupation of his senior counsel, but the learned trial Judge recorded examination-in-chief of the eye-witnesses, who out rightly disclosed that they don’t remember anything and the learned Judge used inappropriate language to the junior counsel; that on 08.12.2023 cross examination of the said witnesses was also recorded without production of the case property and the trial Court discarded such objection; that in the evidence too the case property was not produced; that on 21.03.2024, one of the mashirs namely Muhammad Morial was produced by the prosecution before the trial Court, who openly disclosed that he being illiterate does not know anything about the incident, despite the learned Judge carried on recording of evidence, on which counsel for the accused vehemently objected but the trial Judge continued his inappropriate behavior with his rude style; therefore, the applicant has serious apprehension that the trial might not be concluded in a legal way, but he would be treated personally as depicted by the attitude and style of the trial Judge; as such the applicant has lost his faith on the trial Judge, therefore, instant proceedings may be transferred to any other Court having jurisdiction in the District or Division Larkana for its disposal in accordance with law.
3. Pursuant to notice, respondent No.2 put his appearance before this court on 28.06.2024 and submitted that he, being poor, is not in a position to engage a counsel of his choice and, therefore, showed full confidence over learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh, appearing for the state, has vehemently opposed the transfer of the proceedings from the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero, to any other court having jurisdiction.
4. I heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh, and perused the material available on record.
5. The report was called from the trial Court, which depicted that on 21.03.2024, the examination-in-chief of mashir Muhammad Moryal was recorded as Ex.13. During his examination-in-chief, the learned counsel for the accused raised unnecessary objection and spoke in a harsh manner with the learned DDPP for the state, on that learned advocate for the accused was directed to maintain the decorum of the court, but learned counsel without cross-examining the said P.W left the court and the matter was adjourned in the interest of justice.
6. The defence counsel made a statement at the bar that no such incident occurred. The counsel refers to another case diary demonstrating that an examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses was recorded in the absence of defence counsel. Judicial patience and the conduct of proceedings are crucial elements in ensuring that legal processes are fair and effective. Judicial patience refers to the quality of a judge allowing sufficient time for all parties to present their case, including arguments and evidence, without undue haste. It ensures that each party has a fair opportunity to be heard. Halsbury's Laws of England: Volume 10 (Court Proceedings) often discusses the management of court proceedings, including the judge's role in ensuring fair and patient handling of cases. The text typically highlights the importance of allowing sufficient time for argument and evidence presentation. Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 11 (Judges): This volume includes discussions on judicial conduct, where patience is implied as part of a judge's duty to manage court proceedings effectively and impartially.
7. The court is mandated to operate with impartiality and without prejudice, ensuring that justice is administered in a manner that upholds the integrity of the judiciary in the perception of litigants. To foster confidence in the judicial system, it is imperative that the court upholds the highest ethical standards as prescribed by the law. However, the rights of the parties must not be restricted, curtailed, or interfered with except as explicitly permitted by law.
8. The Supreme Court has thoroughly examined the issue of a judge's impartiality or potential bias in its ruling concerning the Government of NWFP and another v. Dr. Hussain Ahmed Haroon and others. 2003 SCMR 104. The established legal principle dictates that the transfer of a case from one jurisdiction to another is permissible solely under exceptional circumstances, provided it is demonstrated that such a transfer serves the interests of justice. In this matter, reliance is duly placed upon the judgement rendered in the case of All Pakistan Newspapers Society and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others, reported as PLD 2012 Supreme Court 1.
9. Prima facie, the argument presented by the counsel for the applicant appears to be valid, contingent upon specific reservations. In light of these circumstances, the applicant seeks to ensure a fair trial in the ongoing criminal proceedings, a goal that can only be achieved through a foundation of trust in the trial court. In consideration of the paramount importance of justice, alongside the observations made by the esteemed trial Court in its comments dated 15-06-2024.
10. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, Sessions Case No. 299 of 2023, currently pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Ratodero, is hereby withdrawn, and the same is transferred to Session Judge Larkana, who either keep the above case on his own board or to transfer the case to any additional session judge for its disposal in accordance with law. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the learned session Judge, Larkana, will ensure the expeditious disposal of the aforementioned session case within two months and submit such compliance report to this court through the Additional Registrar of this court.
11. Consequently, an instant Criminal Transfer Application is disposed of in the above terms.
Judge
Manzoor
.