1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-Respondent No. 1, along with 13 other persons, is being tried under section 302/148/149, P. P. C. Read with section 201, P. P. C. By the Sessions Judge, Lyallpur. In this case, the statements of 19 witnesses have been recorded. The statement of the present petitioner was recorded on the 18th July 1969, and the case was adjourned to 23rd July 1969 for further recording the statement of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 moved an application Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4578 of 1969, for the transfer of the above case to any other Court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that the learned trial Judge, during the course of the trial, has not recorded some of the statements which has been made favourable to the petitioner and has also curtailed cross- examination of the defence counsel on the ground that it had become very late. This application came up for hearing before M. H. Munir, J. On the 4th November 1969. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties, transferred the case from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Lyallpur to that of the Additional Sessions Judge stationed at Lyallpur. The petitioner, who is the brother of the deceased, has also been appearing in the Court. He moved an application Criminal Miscellaneous, No. 6717 of 1969, under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Praying that the order passed in the transfer application on the 4th November 1969, at the back of the petitioner, be recalled and the matter be reheard and decided afresh. This application was dismissed on the 3rd February 1970. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has held that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the transfer application and he has no right to be impleaded in the transfer application made by the respondent. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
2. In support of the petition Mr. Zia Mahmood Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner is the real brother of Wali Dad, one of the deceased persons for whose murder, the respondent No. 1 and others are facing trial. It was he who has set the machinery of law in motion by lodging the F. I. R. That being so, he was an interested party in the decision of the application moved by respondent No. 1 for the transfer of the aforesaid case. He was, therefore, entitled to a notice and an opportunity of being heard before the decision of the aforesaid application. The contention of the learned counsel has no force. In our opinion, in murder cases, the opposite---party is only the State. The relatives of the deceased person or the persons who lodge the First Information Report are neither proper nor necessary parties to the case pending before the Sessions Court. In view of this, the petitioner was not entitled to any notice in the transfer application. The learned single Judge, therefore, was perfectly justified in deciding the transfer application in the absence of the petitioner. There is no force in the petition, which is dismissed.