' The present transfer applications have been filed by Hussain Aftab seeking transfer of 15 cases under section 420/468/511, P. P. C. From the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Harbour, Karachi. It seems that the petitioner is involved in 15 similar cases on similar allegations. By this order Transfer Applications Nos. 4/80, 5/80, 6/80, 7/80, 8/80, 9/80, 10/80, 11/80, 12/80, 13/80, 14/80, 15/80, 16/80, 17/80, 18/80, are being disposed of as the points of facts and law are common.
2. First Information reports were filed by the Federal Investigation Agency in each one of these cases and after usual investigations the cases were sent up for trial. On 20-12-1979 the cases stood transferred before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, from which Court transfer of these cases is sought.
3. Mr. Riaz-ul-Hasan has appeared for the applicant in all these cases and the State was represented by Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate-General. Mr. Riaz-ul-Hasan has urged before me that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted wrongly in rejecting the application for adjournment of the cases on ground of sickness of the applicant. He has further urged that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was prejudiced against the applicant as he thought that the applicant had made complaints against the Magistrate before the Army Authorities. Mr. Riaz-ul-Hasan has, however, stated that in fact the applicant had made no such complaints.
4. I have examined the diary of the case, a copy of which has been placed on the record. The cases came to be tried by the Magistrate who is presently dealing with it on 20-1-1978. As from this date until 14-2-1980 the cases were fixed in Court on 19 successive dates of hearing. Except on one date of hearing the applicant had remained absent so that the cases could not proceed. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate had been granting successive adjournments to the applicant on ground of sickness. It was ultimately on 28-1-1980 that the application submitted on that day for adjournment was rejected, and notice was issued to the surety for the applicant for taking action in terms of bail bond. This appears to have given to the applicant a cause of grievance. It may also be stated that the applicant had gone away to London without seeking any permission from the Court.
5. On looking at the diary I am left in no doubt whatsoever that the applicant has been persistently remaining absent and has tried to prolong the proceedings in the cases. If the applicant had remained absent on 17 out of 18 successive dates of hearing the Magistrate was perfectly justified in taking action against the surety in terms of bail bond. In fact such action should have been taken are long. From the mere fact of the Magistrate having taken notice of the successive defaults of the applicant an inference of prejudice in the mind of the Magistrate cannot be drawn.
6. Mr. Riaz-ul-Hasan further submitted that the Magistrate was laboring under a wrong impression that the applicant had made a complaint against the Magistrate to the Army Authorities. On being asked whether the applicant had made such a complaint the learned Advocate stated that in fact no such complaint had been made. If that be so the question of the Magistrate being prejudiced against the applicant on that account does not arise.
7. I see no substance in these applications which are dismissed. II would, however, observe that these cases are very old cases and th A Magistrate must finish the same within six months from today and repo compliance to this Court.