Transfer his Session case from the trial court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge

      The Under Trial Prisoner/ applicant Allah Juryo son of Allah Bux Leghari presently confined in Central Prison Hyderabad, sent an application to this Court with prayer to transfer his Session case from the trial court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Accordingly, said application was entertained by this Court and same was converted into Criminal Revision Application for transfer of case vide order dated 11.01.2014, and simultaneously, comments were called from the learned trial court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad through learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2.       The grievance of the applicant / UTP as per the contents of his application is that he and his father are facing their trail in Sessions Case No.817/2011 bearing crime No.180/2011 of P.S. Hatri, Hyderabad under section 302, 324, 34 PPC, and Sessions Case No.818/2011 under section 13-E Arms Ordinance in the court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and applicant seeks transfer of both criminal cases to any other court for its adjudication on the following grounds:-

(i)  The complainant has falsely implicated them with the collusion of police

(ii)     The Reader of the trial court is close friend of the complainant

(iii)    The Trial Judge threatened them through his Reader to reject the bail of his father.

(iv)    There are so many UTPs of the Prison, who are not satisfied from the Judge and have no any hope of free and fair trial.   

 3.      In the comments, the learned trial Judge has submitted that the case is old one pertaining to year 2011, wherein charge was framed on 03.01.2012 and the P.Ws are regularly appearing before the Court, but the case is being adjourned from time to time due to absence of counsel for applicant. He has denied the allegations leveled by the applicant and stated that in fact the applicant is trying to linger on the case. He, however, raised no objection for transfer of the case to any other court.

4.       The applicant is produced in custody. On query made by the Court, the applicant stated that learned trial Judge and his Reader are pressing hard and compelling the applicant to proceed with the case and the Reader of court is close friend of the complainant, however, he neither alleged any reasonable ground for transfer of the case nor leveled any other serious allegations regarding integrity of the learned Judge.

5.       Learned Assistant P.G. opposed the request of applicant and submitted that there is no reasonable ground for transfer of the case from the learned trial court to any other court, and mere loss of faith by any party is not sufficient ground to transfer the case from any court of law.

6.       I have heard the applicant/ UTP in person, learned Assistant P.G and perused the material available on record meticulously.

7.       Perusal of the record reflects that the applicant and his father are facing their trial in two criminal cases including the heinous crime of murder; despite of framing charge by the learned trial court on 03.01.2012, the counsel for the applicant is delaying the trial and avoiding to proceed the case while the prosecution witnesses are attending the proceedings regularly, but during the period of more than two years, the learned trial court could not record the evidence of witnesses.

8.       The allegations leveled by the applicant indicate that instant application devoid of any cogent ground for transfer of the case except that the Reader is close friend of the complainant and the trial Judge conveyed through the Reader to the applicant the bail of his father would be rejected. These allegations have neither any substance for consideration nor could be believed, and the trial court intends to reject the bail of co-accused then there was no need to convey such fact to the applicant through his Reader while UTP is being produced in open court.

9.       The next ground urged by the UTP in this Court that the trial Judge and Reader of the court are compelling the applicant to proceed the case, it is prime duty of the trial court to proceed the case on merits to ensure administration of justice, the case of prosecution shall not be defeated on the sole ulterior motive of the defence to cause unnecessary delay to frustrate the prosecution witnesses who are continuously attending the trial court for the period more than two years. It is also prime duty of the court to ensure impartiality and maintain transparency during the course of the trial and must afford equal opportunity to both the parties. The court also not be influenced by the vague allegations leveled by any of the party and strictly act in accordance with law to achieve the task of administration of justice. 

10.     The next important aspect is the alleged statement of applicant regarding lost of his faith upon the learned trial court; while dealing with transfer applications moved by any of the aggrieved party at litigation, it is mandatory responsibility of the appellate forum to scrutinize these kind of allegations deeply and mere word of the allegations must not be treated as gospel truth. Such statement must be scanned by considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and focusing upon the entire behaviour of the said party during the proceedings to reach on the right conclusion, and appellate forum must not oblige the any party who is bent upon to pressurize or compel the trial court for achievement his ulterior motive by showing his eyes.    

11.     Admittedly, the applicant has not denied that prosecution witnesses are regularly attending the court, but on the other hand, the trial of the cases is freezed due to the deliberate absence of the counsel for applicant which has been causing the unnecessary adjournments and postponement of the trial of murder case before the learned trial court and despite lapse of about two years, case has yet not been proceeded.

12.     I am of the considered opinion that practice of frequent filing of  transfer applications which are not supported by any solid and convincing grounds, if allowed, it would on the contrary cause embarrassing and discouragement to trial Court, therefore, such malpractice shall be discouraged and dejected which otherwise also causes delay in proceedings of main the case.     

13.     For the foregoing reasons, I find no cogent substance and convincing merits in the instant criminal revision application which stands dismissed. However, learned trial court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously as the subject case pertains to the year 2011.