The petitioner seeks transfer of case pending in the Court of Mr. Akhtar Mahmud, Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali
2. It is urged that the trial Court acted illegally and to the prejudice of the petitioner when an order of resummoning of Mst. Allah Wasai was passed on 20th April, 1981 on an application submitted by the accused party on 18 April 1981 without issuing any notice to the complainant thus showed an attitude of partisanship. The second grouse which caused the apprehension is that the Additional Sessions Judge, is alleged to have threatened Lal son of Jinda, the first cousin of Mst. Allah Wasai that if Mst. Allah Wasai is not produced on 26th May, 1981 he will suffer dire consequences. It has also been urged that he was forced to give an undertaking in writing to produce Mst. Allah Wasai.
Thirdly, it has also been contended that the withdrawal of this order is a conspicuous act and that also without any notice to the petitioner. An apprehension has been expressed that this has been done to expedite the case to the disadvantage of the petitioner.
3. Parawise comments have been received. The allegations of threatening and getting the undertaking to produce Mst. Allah Wasai had been denied. However, the Additional Sessions Judge had admitted that the order of resummoning of Mst. Allah Wasai was passed on 20th April, 1981. It has been explained that it was done to procure her attendance, at the time of recording of the defence witness who was stated to have one attested the affidavit of Mst. Allah Wasai. The Additional Sessions Judge has also admitted that the order of resummoning was withdrawn as the accused later on had made a statement that they do not want to produce the defence.
4. The learned counsel while arguing the petition has categorically stated that there was no complaint of dishonest bias but in any case the circumstances have created an apprehension inth the mind of the petitioner wherein justice even if done will inspire no confidence. The respondents Nazar and Muhammad Ali are present in person. They have put in appearance on service of summonses. They have stated that they want that their case be decided justly and expeditiously.
They have no objec--tion if the case is transferred to any other Court.
5. .The learned counsel for the State has however argued that whatever be the merits of the case this is not the stage. The case is already concluded. The learned counsel for the petitioner has controverted this argument and has submitted that the transfer is sought on the ground of apprehension and fear and the application has been submitted only when occasion arose for such an application. Since the occasion arose towards the end of the trial there was no fun in moving the application at an early stage and in fact if the petitioner had any intention to get the case transferred at any cost he would have moved the petition at an early stage. Reliance in this regard is placed on Sikandar Lalpuri v. The Crown (1928) 10 1 L R 778) wherein their Lordships have held that "if the grounds for a transfer are made out the Court ought not to refuse it merely because the case had reached at an advanced stage or because the transfer may entail expense and trouble to all concerned."
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the report submitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, the state--ment of the respondents and arguments of the learned counsel for the State and feel that the petitioner rightly or wrongly has entertained apprehen--sions in his mind. It will not inspire confidence at all in the Court which is seized of the matter. For the transfer of a case proof of actual bias is not to be led like the cases in which convictions or acquittals are sought. Mere apprehensions supported by some facts which may lend some support to the apprehensions of the petitioner will be a sufficient ground for transfer of a case. Keeping in view the circumstances narrated above I feel that it will be in the interest of justice that the case is withdrawn from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali. The case is, there--fore, withdrawn from the Court of Mr. Muhammad Akhtar, A. S. J. And entrusted to Sessions Judge, Mianwali who will dispose it of expeditiously. The order shall be communicated at the contest.