1. ' GHULAM DASTAGIR A. SHAHANI, J.---Transfer application is submitted by the complainant for offence under sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 458, 403, P.P.0 in a Sessions Case No,43 of 2000 viz. The State v. Khuda Bux alias Khudoo and others in Crime No, 20 of 1990 P.S. Tando Rahim Khan, on the ground that he will not get justice from the Court of learned IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Dadu, alleging that accused/respondent No,1 has got family terms with one Abdul Fatah Tunio who is brother-in-law of respondent No,4 and Abdul Fatah Tunio used to visit the Central Jail, Hyderabad and oftenly visited the Chamber of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu at Central Jail, Hyderabad on the dates of hearing.
2. ' Heard learned counsel for applicant who mostly repeated the same facts and requested for transfer of the case from the file of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu to any other Court.
3. ' Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the relevant material available on record, particularly allegations contained in the memo. Of transfer application.
4. ' It is settled principle of law that until and unless sufficient material is placed on record of the transfer application though sufficiently indicated that the party concerned is not likely to get fair justice at the hands of Presiding Judge of the trial Court, the transfer application of the concerned case cannot be allowed. In the case in hand, the apprehensions in the mind of the applicant are not substantiated without any cogent material which is a requirement of law to direct for transfer of the case from one Court to another and mere allegation not substantiated by any specific detail or nature of such kind, would not be considered a ground for transfer. Prima facie it appears that the applicant has not disclosed any specific allegation or incident from which it appears that applicant or incident from which it appears that applicant will not get justice from the Court of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu and only word against word is alleged by the applicant. Mere apprehension in the mind of a part that he would not get justice at the hands of Presiding Office of the Court is no ground for transfer of A the case. Apprehension must be reasonable and the reasonableness is to be decided at the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
5. ' It is also settled principle of law that transfer of a case pending in a competent Court cannot be claimed as a matter of routine or at the wish of any of the party unless it is apparent on the face of the record that the party seeking the transfer cannot get fair justice, treatment or trial. Even no notice of the transfer application had been given by the party to the Public Prosecutor as required by section 526(vi), Cr.P.C. As such application for transfer of the case on the face of it is frivolous and misconceived. Reliance is placed on a case of Lutufullah v. State and 9 others 2000 PCr.LJ 1635.
6. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "Transfer of case from one Court to another is only justified when there is reasonable apprehension in mind of party that Court would not act fairly in imparting justice. In that context, Court has to conditionally assess whether apprehension being expressed is really such as reasonable men might justifiable be expected to have looking to peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
7. Contention that case may be transferred from one District to another District as it will be convenient to applicant (complainant) or his counsel is not sufficient. It does not justify transfer of case on this ground. From conduct of applicant, it prime facie, appears that applicant seeks transfer of case from one Sessions Division to another Sessions Division only to prolong proceedings. Held: Self procured mistrust and expression of no confidence in Court, which is based on general and vague allegations, is not sufficient for transfer of case. ."
8. ' Reliance is also placed on the cases of Muhammad Munir v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 1650), Qazi Muhammad Irshad and 4 others v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 1952) and Ghulam Shabir and 2 others v.
9. Nawab Shah and another (2001 PCr.L.J 2066) so also on unreported Criminal Transfer Applications Nos.42,.43 and 44 of 2006 decided on 13-8-2007, respectively.
10. 'In view of above facts and circumstances, there is no sufficient ground or reason available, on the basis of which the matter may be transferred from the file of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, B Dadu. Consequently, present transfer application is dismissed in limine along with other listed application.