1. ' Three petitioners alongwith four others were tried for the charges under section 302/307/395/397/148/149, P.P.C. And acquitted on 15-12-1980 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Attock. Upon a petition for Criminal Revision No,55 of 1981 filed in this Court at the instance of the complainant, re-trial of the petitioners for the offences under section 302/307 was ordered and the case was sent to learned Sessions Judge, Attock. Petitioners applied for bail through Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Advocate of Attock District. An objection was raised to his conducting the defence on behalf of the petitioners. It was stated that at some time in the past, the Advocate had acted as a counsel for the complainant. Thereupon, the learned Advocate sought permission of the Court to withdraw from the case and the petitioners engaged the services of Ch. Zahoor Hussain a learned Advocate from Rawalpindi who was assisted by Muhammad Bashir Pcracha who was a local Advocate. Petitioners are shown to have since been admitted to bail. At some later stage, the case was transferred to the file of Syed Abdul Aziz Shah, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Attock, Meanwhile, the complainant party engaged Sheikh Altaf Elahi, a learned Advocate from Rawalpindi to conduct case on their behalf. In this situation, learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to hear the case and sent the case file to learned Sessions Judge with the request that it may be entrusted to some other Court. Order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge reads:- "Since the learned counsel appearing on either side remained my close associates during the period of my practice at Bar and also for my personal reasons, I do not consider it feasible to try this case myself, therefore the same is remitted back to the learned Sessions Judge with the request that the case in hand may be entrusted to some other Court. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 14-12-1989." ' applied for its transfer to a Court of competent jurisdiction outside Attock District and requested the learned Sessions Judge for report to the High Court. Learned Sessions Judge declined to move in the direction suggested by the petitioners and left it to them to move the High Court for transfer of the case to a Court of another District. It is in this background that an application under section 526, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed in this Court for transfer of the case to a Court beyond Attock District and meanwhile, request for stay of proceedings in the trial Court was made.
2. Learned counsel has been heard at length. It was submitted by him that due to non-availability of sound legal assistance from the local Bar at Attock, accused because of their impecuniosity were unable to employ services of an able and good Advocate/Advocates from Rawalpindi or its neighbouring District to defend them at their trial to be held at Attock. It was further submitted that the complainant party held, both financial and political influence in the Attock District and thus were in a position to swa y the mind of anybody in the Attock District. It was also submitted that local lawyers were reluctant to assist and provide legal aid to the petitioners. Upon these premises, it was submitted that the case be taken out of Attock District for its trial by a Court of competent jurisdiction in any other district of Punjab Province, he it Rawalpindi or otherwise.
3. ' Having carefully reviewed the grounds taken in the petition and urged at its hearing, I do not consider it proper to order transfer of the case from Attock District to any other Court beyond its limits. Occurrence took place in 1978. In all, there were seven accused. Initially, they were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge at Attock and acquitted of the charges in 1980. They were then assisted and defended at their trial by a local Advocate from Attock. In criminal revision filed in this Court, accused were represented by Ch. Zahoor Hussain Advocate. When the case went hack, accused engage,d Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Advocate who later withdrew his power on account of an objection raised by the complainant party. Thereupon, accused engaged Ch. Zahoor Hussain Advocate from Rawalpindi to conduct their defence at Attock and the complainant, engaged Sheikh Altaf Elahi Advocate of Rawalpindi. In this eventuality, learned Additional Sessions Judge who also hailed from Rawalpindi declined to proceed with the trial of the case and requested learned Sessions Judge for entrustment of the case to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. At present, the case is on the cause list of Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan learned Additional Sessions Judge, Attock. I am informed, it is now posted for 8-1-1990. From my own knowledge of local conditions and experiences at the Bar, I do not find Attock District to be deficient in legal talents.
4. There have been and are still quite a good number of eminent lawyers practising at Attock. To me, therefore, it does not appear to be a correct statement that 'there is no lawyer of sound standing available at Attock to be engaged by the petitioners against the complainant party and to avail the proper legal assistance at Attock'. Similarly, in absence of sufficient particulars, it is open to grave doubts that members of legal fraternity at Attock refused to lend its assistance to the accused. Upon query from the Court, learned counsel signally failed to point out the Advocates who were approached and declined to come forward to defend the accused. Similar comments can be made with regard to financial and political influence allegedly wielded by the complainant party. Despite the existence of stated financial/political influence which was not shown to be newly acquired, accused were acquitted of the charges by a learned Additional Sessions Judge. I am reluctant to think that any influence regardless of its size, be it political or financial, could affect impartiality or the capacity of the Court to administer even-handed justice for which purpose it alone exists. It may not be without some interest to observe that not a syllable was uttered in regard to the complete impartiality of the learned Judge now holding the trial of the accused.
5. Close reading of the petition reveals that the real object behind it is to further delay the remanded trial and bring its venue as close to Rawalpindi as is possible for the lawyer of their choice to appear at his convenience. To this course, Court cannot lend a helping hand and this is what I propose to do in the present case.
6. ' Having regard to what has been observed above, petition for transfer lacks merits. It is dismissed.
7. Learned trial Judge shall expedite the trial and conclude it expeditiously.