1. Muhammad Masood son of Fazal Muhammad Arain, resident of Chak No. 254/G.B., Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh has moved this application under section 526, Cr.P.C. For the transfer of complaint 'Muhammad Masood v. Abdullah and others'. It is under section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 pending in the Court of S.M. Elahee, Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh.
2. According to the petitioner a false case was registered under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at the instance of Abdullah and Muhammad Munir respondents in this petition against the petitioner and others.
3. On 26-3-1984, learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh acquitted the accused including the petitioner. Against that order revision petition was filed before the Federal Shariat Court. There the order of acquittal was upheld. The revision was dismissed on merits. The judgment of Federal Shariat Court is dated 13-10-1985.
4. After the acquittal the petitioner filed suit for damages which is pending at Toba Tek Singh. When the revision was dismissed the petitioner also filed complaint under section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 against Abdullah and Muhammad Munir which is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh. Prosecution evidence has concluded.
5. It is alleged that on 14-1-1987 when the case came up for hearing, the Additional Sessions Judge `made no secret of his designs to quash the proceedings by making candid observations that the accused persons have been able to approach the learned District and Sessions Judge and it is on his desire that he is obliged to accept the petition under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Filed by the accused-respondents'. Transfer is sought on the following grounds:-
(a) That application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Moved by the respondents has no substance;
(b) That it is based on wrong assumption of law and facts;
(c) That the respondents have been given assurance by the candid observation of the Additional Sessions Judge that they shall be acquitted.
6. I called for report and comments from the Additional Sessions Judge by my order, dated 28-1-1987.
7. Report has been submitted.
8. I have gone through the same. Additional Sessions Judge denied to have made any such observation nor did he give any impression about the decision to be made in the complaint.
9. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner who reiterated the grounds taken in this petition which has been referred to above.
10. All this has been denied by the Additional Sessions Judge. Therefore, in my opinion there is no good ground in this application for transfer of the case, which is hereby dismissed.