' The present petition contends for transfer of the case in question from the Court of Mr. Jalal-ud- Din Akbar, Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.
2. To support his petition, the learned counsel submitted that the previous conduct of the petitioner and his co-accused is very relevant in the instant case and in this respect stated that the case was registered on 2-2-1990 and that the petitioner was arrested on 16-2-1990 and after submission of the challan, the case remained pending in the Court presided over by the different learned Judges, but neither the petitioner nor his co-accused ever made such application and that they fully participated in the proceedings and the evidence of 14 P.Ws. Was recorded and that at that stage the present learned Judge was posted as the trial Judge. Further, argued that all this goes to show that the , present petition was not filed with mala fide intention to hold up the trial, and therefore, the present petition should be allowed as the petitioner has genuine apprehension that he may not be dealt with fairly and justly by the present trial Court. Further, submitted that to establish the reasonable apprehension of the petitioner as stated above, the present petition is supported by the three affidavits filed by Zaka Ullah Khan, President Mazdoor Ittehad Union, Muhammad Ashraf, Additional President of the same Union and Mahmood Ahmad, Chief Organizer of the same Union.
Further, pointed out that the said affidavits are to the effect that the complainant party of the case in question belongs to Jamaat-e-Islami and are publicly stating that the accused cannot be saved from punishment as the learned Additional Sessions Judge in question, namely, Mr. Jalal- ud-Din Akbar also belongs to Jamaat-e-Islami. Further submitted that Annexure 'E' hereto, an attested copy of the order, dated 28-2-1993, proves that the learned trial Court wanted to proceed with the trial of the case in haste, despite the petitioner/accused having stated before the learned trial Court that he had no confidence in the Court. To sum up, argued that if the case was allowed to be tried by the learned Judge, the petitioner strongly apprehends that he will not get justice from the learned trial Court. To support his contentions placed reliance upon PLD 1973 SC 327; PLD 1978 Lah. 235; PLD 1962 Gar. 77; AIR 1925 Lah. 101 and 361 and 1990 P Cr. L J 205.
3. It may be pointed out at the very outset that the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel is distinguishable on facts and as such is not applicable to the case in hand. Furthermore, the learned counsel failed to state anything to support the contention that the learned trial Judge in question was associated with or belongs to tie political party alleged i,e. Jamaat-e-Islami. In this respect, the learned counsel was called upon to substantiate the said allegation by referring to any activities, past or present of the learned Judge, which may prove that he was associated with or has strong links with, or is in any way likely to be influenced by, the said political party, but to no avail. It was pointed out that on the mere assertion or Maim of a party to a case that the trial Judge was of the same political persuasion as Gee of the parties to a case pending before the said Judge, no case for transfer of a case is made out. In this respect, it is further observed that a senior Judicial Officer of the experience and responsibilities of an Additional Sessions Judge cannot be subjected to adverse presumption simply on the basis of a claim by a party to a case that the said Judge was of the same political/philosophical/sectarian persuasion as his opposing party, and that any interference with the normal proceedings of his judicial work on the basis of such unsubstantiated allegation shall be totally unwarranted; and without establishing that his being of such persuasion, prima facie, may cause prejudice to a party before him in a case, even a case for calling for his report/explanation in respect thereof shall not be made out.
4. In the instant case, it has also been alleged that the learned trial Judge had shown undue haste in proceeding with the trial of the case in question but a perusal of the order, dated 28-2-1993 fails to support the said allegation. For reference, the said order dated 28-2-1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "At this stage, learned counsel for accused Abdul Ghafoor states that before recording the evidence the accused should be granted opportunity to file the transfer application. As per request and statement of learned counsel case to come up for proper orders on 14-3-1993."
5. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above, the present petition for transfer, being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed in limine.