' Muhammad Ramzan petitioner is facing trial in a murder case before Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. He seeks transfer of his case from the said Court to some other Court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that he has entertained an apprehension that he would not get fair and impartial trial from the said Court. The reason for entertaining the apprehension is that his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was not recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, rather it was dictated to the typist by the District Attorney and that too in the absence of his counsel. It is further submitted that the questions put to the petitioner were not in interrogative form requiring him to give his explanation, therefore, he was prejudiced and that when it was pointed out to the learned Court by his learned counsel, who reached the Court meanwhile, it declined to make amends and that the application moved in this regard was dismissed without assigning any cogent reasons on 10-1-1990. Learned counsel informs that this Court has directed that the case should be decided by 31-1-1990, and submits that it did not mean that the direction should be complied with by adopting illegal procedure. He submits that he has no intention to prolong the trial and undertakes to co-operate in finalisation of the case within two days before the transferee Court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent states that the apprehension of the petitioner that he would not get fair trial in the said Court is misconceived. According to him, it is not a requirement of law that statement of an accused under section 342 Cr.P.C. Should be recorded in presence of his counsel, therefore, it is not indicative of any bias on part of the Court against the petitioner. Further submits that though certain questions put to the petitioner are not in proper form yet he is not prejudiced because he has got another opportunity to clarify his position when he would appear under section 340(2) Cr.P.C.
3. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned Presiding Officer in his comments stated that the D.A. Did not examine the petitioner under section 342 Cr.P.C., but his help was sought for making the petitioner understand the questions put by the Court. The petitioner understands the language of the Presiding Officer and there was no need to ask the Prosecutor to act as interpreter. I think this was enough to raise suspicion in the mind of the petitioner that his statement had not been correctly recorded and that he might not get justice from the Court. It is well settled that justice should not only be done but also seem to be done. Be that as it may, confidence of the petitioner appears to have been shaken in the Court, so I find it a fit case for transfer. Consequently, the case is withdrawn from the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura and entrusted to the Court of Mr. Sher Zaheer Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura for disposal in accordance with law within the time prescribed by this Court. The parties shall appear there on 27-1-1990. This order shall be sent through special massenger to the Courts concerned for compliance.