1. ' AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.---Through instant Criminal Transfer Application the applicant has sought transfer of Sessions Case No,273 of 2006 St. v. Amir Bux and others Crime No,156 of 2006 registered under sections 302, 504, 147,148, 149, P.P.C. At Police Station Dadu District Dadu from the Court of learned Mrd Additional Sessions Judge Dadu to Sessions Judge or any other Additional Sessions Judge at Dadu.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the learned trial Court is proceeding with the matter in haste whereas on the fateful date an application seeking further time to engage another counsel was made by the applicants/accused which has been turned down by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26-12-2011. Per learned counsel three prosecution witnesses have been examined whereas the applicants/accused are not satisfied with their earlier counsel and have right to engage another counsel of their own choice under section 340, Cr.P.C.
3. ' Notices were issued, pursuant to which learned counsel for the complainant has filed objections along with annexures i,e, case diaries of the learned trial Court which are taken on record, copy supplied to learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional P-G.
4. ' Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 argued that the instant application is misconceived and has been filed to further linger on the matter which is pending since 2006. Per learned counsel, at least three senior counsel filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of the applicants/accused, they are appearing whereafter learned trial Court also allowed the applicants/accused to engage other counsel. Per learned counsel presently Mr. Azizullah Buriro Advocate having standing of 25 years is representing the applicants/accused, however, it appears that in order to linger on the matter the applicants/accused are deliberately avoiding and not allowing their counsel to appear in the trial Court so that the prosecution witnesses may find out from the scene. He further states that the examination-in-chief of the P.Ws. Was recorded on 6-7-2011 when the counsel for the applicant was absent without any intimation. However, learned trial Court adjourned the matter to 26-11-2011, whereby a chance to cross-examine the P.Ws. Was granted to the applicants/accused but instead of availing that chance, the applicants/accused moved another application once again seeking adjournment and to engage other counsel.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicants while exercising right of rebuttal states that the side of the applicants/accused to cross-examine the P.Ws. Was also closed by the learned trial Court on 26- 12-2011 which has seriously prejudiced the applicants, however, he has submitted that he will seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law to get the side of the applicants/accused to cross examine the P.Ws. Reopened.
6. ' Learned Additional P.-G. For the State in view of the above facts states that though no ground for transfer of the case is made out, however, he states that the right of cross-examination of the applicant may be allowed provided if the applicant approaches the trial Court seeking proper remedy.
7. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It appears that the matter pertains to the year 2006 whereas upon perusal of case diaries furnished by the counsel for the respondent No,1 it appears that the matter is not proceeding on one account or the other. Large number of counsel is representing the accused persons and their Vakalatnamas are still on record whereas no one has sought discharge of his Vakalatuama on behalf of the applicants/accused. I am of the view that the trial is required to be Proceeded and concluded within a reasonable time whereas no party can be allowed to delay the proceedings without any reasonable excuse. In the instant case applicants have been awarded- several opportunities which were already availed by them as large number of counsel are representing them as per record, and seeking 'replacement of the counsel at the pleasure of the applicants A being an attempt to delay the proceedings does not appear to be in conformity to the provisions of section 340, Cr.P.C. Moreover if the applicants/accused are prejudiced by any order passed by the learned trial Court, they are at liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law, whereafter the matter may proceed and trial may be concluded. I am of the view that no reasonable cause has been shown whereby the instant case may be transferred from the learned trial Court to another Court. Accordingly instant transfer application is dismissed, however, applicants/accused are at liberty to seek remedy against any impugned order in accordance with law.
9. The Criminal Transfer Application stands dismissed along with listed applications.