MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK J-: Comments have been received. Learned counsel heard. Since the original record of the case has also been submitted, it has also been gone through.
2. The application is for the transfer7/^ the case from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. Learncd counsel appearing for the complainant has no objection to the transfer of the case. His statement at the bar is that actually the petitioner accused party were delaying the trail, so that the period of two years was over and they could get bail on Statutory ground. This is strongly refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Since there is no dispute that the case may be transferred, the matter has simpled but after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at the bar and going through the original record keeping in view the comments submitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, it seems that there is something fishy in the matter and it seems desirable that the matter be looked into.
4. The allegations are that the complainant party are influential and wealthy people and they have established liaison with the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The transfer application consists of seven numbered paragraphs in addition to the prayer clause. The comments submitted are confined to four paras. This indicates that the learned additional Sessions Judge is either so absorbed in his affairs or so careless that he did not bother to read the transfer application and to submit his reply though he claims to have submitted "prawise comments", for this carelessness he needs to be pulled up.
5. The carelessness is not confined to the reply to the transfer application, rather the whole record of the case is replete with it. The accused were charged vide order dated 17.6.1990 and the presence recorded is of two of the accused in custody and one on bail and the A.D A. For the state.
The case was adjourned to 10.7.90. On this date the Presiding Officer was on leave and the presence recorded was "presence as before". The case was adjourned to 25.7.90. On this date the presence recorded is "presence as before". In similar words the presence for the next dates i.e.3.9.90 and 30.9.90 is recorded. This indicates that the order was not being recorded according to the actual facts and mechanically Order was being recorded.
6. In para 7 of the transfer application there is clear allegation that an application was moved before the leamed addl. Sessions Judge showing lack of faith in him. On - behalf of the petitioner which upset the Addl. Sessions Judge. About this para conveniently no reply has been submitted by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that Mr. Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner/accused had appeared in the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge on 3.9.90 and presented an application(Annexure 'A'). On going through it the learned Judg was very much upset, he did not entertain it, returned it and extended threats for-proceeding for contempt of Court. This has been filed with the transfer application and is owned by Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Advocate at the bar today. The presence, of Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Advocate is not marked on the record nor of any other Advocate. Learned counsel has further pointed out that the record was not being properly prepared in as much as the order dated 30.9.90. Recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge was also factually incorrect. In this order it is recited that the counsel for the accused (Mr. Ghulam Bari Saleemi) had to file a transfer application in the High court and time be given for that.
It is also recited that "0.1 the last 2/3 dates same request (request for adjournment to move the High court for transfer) was made but uptill now no proof in this regard has been received". On the record of the lower Court there is a letter written by Mr. Ghulam Bari Saleemi dated 30.9.90. On his letter pad that such an application had already been moved.
7. All this indicates that either the learned Judge was upset due to his conduct and the insistence of the accused party that the case be not heard by him or that he was acting with carelessness so much so that he did not record the order correctly and even failed to make reply to the transfer application. Let a notice to issue to him to explain his conduct and firstly file parawise comments.
Copy of the application (Annexre A) would also be sent to him alongwith notice.
8. The case is withdrawn from his Court and is transferred to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kasur himself for disposal. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 18.11.1990.
9. Record of the lower Court be sent to the learned Sessions Judge immediately.