1. This is Crl. Transfer Application moved against the administrative order dated 27.4.2005 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi-South, whereby he ordered transfer of Sessions Case No, 494/2004 from the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-South to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV (Judicial complex) for disposal.
2. The facts arising out of this Cr. Transfer Application are that earlier the present applicants had moved a transfer application of the said case to some other Court before the Court of Sessions, which was dismissed by order dated 19.4.2005. Earlier to this order on 9.4.2005 a Reference was made by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-Sougth to the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi-Sougth for transferring the aforesaid case to a Court trying the matter within the Judicial Complex as the custody was not being produced by the Jail authorities and according to him it was not possible for him to complete the trial within the period of four (4) months as ordered by the this Court. It is also to be noted that earlier in 2004 an application being Cr. Transfer Application No, 20/2004 was also moved by the present applicants before this Court, which was dismissed by order dated 21.4.2004.
3. The main grievance of the applicants is that once the two transfer applications, one before the Sessions Court and one before this Court were dismissed, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction or power to transfer the case from one Court to another. He submitted that even the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge had no power after the two orders cited above to refer the matter to the Sessions Judge for its transfer. It is also contended by the counsel for the applicants that the transfer order passed by the Sessions Judge was without notice to the applicants and secondly, the Reference should have been moved before this Court in view of the order dated 21.4.2004 passed in Cr.
4. Transfer Application No, 20/2004.
5. Mr. Arshad Lodhi, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh and Mr. Shahadat Awan, Advocate for the complainant fully supported the impugned order and submitted that the grounds in the transfer applications were absolutely different and the Reference was on a different ground that the custody was not being produced therefore for expeditious trial the matter be transferred to a Court trying the matter within the Judicial Complex.
6. I have considered the submissions of the counsel and the impugned order. A perusal of the earlier two transfer applications referred above and the orders passed thereon reveal that the same were filed on other grounds than mentioned in the Reference.
7. In my opinion the orders passed on two transfer applications will not in any way adversely affect the right and the jurisdiction of the trial Court to refer the matter to the Sessions Court and in his turn to pass an order for transferring the case in these circumstances from one Court to another as passed by him through the impugned order.
8. Learned counsel has not been able to produce any case law in support of his contention nor he has been able to show that the notice was necessary to be issued to the applicants before the impugned order was passed. He has refereed to the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman versus P.I.A. C. and another (1994 SCM R 2232) in support of his case. With respect, the facts and circumstances of the cited case were absolutely different and do not at all apply to this case. Even otherwise, no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the applicants by the impugned order. I do not find any substance in this transfer application. The same is dismissed.