ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Transfer Appln. No.S-124   of  2010

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

14.01.2011.

1. For orders on office objections.

2. For orders on M. A. No.3291/2010.

3. For orders on M. A. No.3292/2010.

4. For Katcha Peshi.

Applicant/complainant Ali Hassan alias Laung present in person.

Mr. Ahmed Hussain Khoso, advocate for respondents.

Mr. Ali Raza Pathan, State Counsel.

                             ----------------------

                   Mr. Ashfaque Ahmed Sangi, advocate, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of applicant/complainant, which is taken on record.

                   This transfer application is moved on behalf of the applicant/complainant seeking transfer of Case arising out crime No.35/2008 of PS Hyderi, u/s 324, 447, 337-H(2), 504, 342, 506/2,147, 148, 149, PPC, pending trial in the Court of learned VII-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, wherein it has been alleged that the Presiding Officer of the trial Court is not proceeding with the matter in a judicial and transparent manner.  It is further alleged that the prosecution witnesses are being harassed, as the Presiding Officer has issued N.B.Ws for their production and no fair treatment is being given to the applicant/complainant and accordingly no just decision will be delivered by the Presiding Officer.

                   Conversely, learned Counsel for respondents/accused has vehemently opposed the instant transfer application for having been filed without any factual or legal justification.  It is contended by the learned Counsel that the instant application has been filed to cause harassment and inconvenience to the accused persons, and to pressurize the Presiding Officer, who is proceeding with the matter in accordance with the law.  Per learned Counsel, earlier also, another Crl. Transfer Application No.111/2010 was moved on the similar grounds, which was dismissed by this Court on 22.11.2010 for non-prosecution.  Learned Counsel states that the matter is proceeding regularly, whereas prosecution witnesses have been examined, and there are hardly few more witnesses left, to be examined in this case, whereafter the matter would be ripe for judgment.  He states that, under the circumstances, the instant application, is liable to be dismissed.   In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Lutufullah v. The State (2000 P.Cr.L.J. 1635) and Muhammad Moosa v. Ghulam Qadir (2009 P.Cr.L.J. 16).

                   The learned State Counsel also opposes the instant application, on the ground that no cogent ground/reason has been mentioned in the present application, which is false and frivolous on the face of it.

                   I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

                   From the perusal case diaries, filed by the applicant alongwith the instant application, it appears that the Presiding Officer has not issued N.B.Ws against the prosecution witnesses, as alleged by the applicant, whereas only B.Ws were directed to be issued against the prosecution witnesses, who were not attending the Court for the last several dates.  There appears no sufficient ground or valid reason mentioned in the instant application, which may require interference by this Court under section 526, Cr.P.C., which exercise cannot be invoked as a matter of routine or to protract the proceedings pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 

                   Accordingly, I find no merit in the instant application, which is hereby dismissed, alongwith listed application.

                                                                                                JUDGE