' This petition has been filed under section 526, Cr.P.C. For the transfer of case titled The State v.
Muhammad Farooq emanated from F.I.R. No,501/90, dated 11-11-1990 under section 302, P.P.C.
Registered with Police Station North Cantt. Lahore from the Court of Mehr Muhammad Siddique Garwa, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Lahore.
2. The facts in brief constituting the rise of the instant petition are that previously the titled case was entrusted to Malik Khadim Hussain, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. He was transferred.
Mehr Muhammad Siddique Garwa, learned Additional Sessions Judge took the charge against an existing vacancy and he did not take over as the substituted/successor of Malik Khadim Hussain, learned Additional Sessions Judge. The titled part-heard case was transferred to him by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Lahore. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after assuming the jurisdiction started the proceedings. He allowed the defence counsel to dictate the evidence, who while giving the dictation started twisting the facts of the case. The attention of the Court was drawn and a serious objection was raised before the Court but the learned Additional Sessions Judge/trial Court did not pay any heed to it.
3. The learned counsel has vehemently stressed on two grounds to get the titled case transferred i,e, (1) that the dictation was being given by the defence counsel and the learned Additional Sessions Judge remained sitting in his Chamber during the proceedings of the case. He did not even record the objection raised by the petitioner. (2) that the learned trial Court passed certain objectionable remarks in the open Court and gave its mind very clearly against the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the case was registered on 11-11-1990 and since then the delaying tactics are being played on one or the other pretext. He argued that he never gave the dictation during the proceedings. Lastly he argued that no ground exists to transfer the case.
The learned trial Court in pursuance of the order dated 22-11-1994 of this Court filed report and parawise comments stating therein that the case was entrusted to him vide order, dated 26-5- 1994 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Lahore as many as twelves opportunities were given to the prosecution to produce the evidence but no witness was produced to depose. On 3-11-1994 only the statements of two witnesses were recorded as the other witnesses were not present. The defence counsel was never allowed to give the dictation during the trial. He elaborates that he does not feel prejudice in any manner against the petitioner and has also not given his mind regarding the decision of the case.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at full length and have also perused the record with their assistance.
6. The perusal of the record clearly indicates that the jurisdiction was not assumed suo motu by the learned trial Court. The case was entrusted to, previously, Malik Khadim Hussain, learned Additional Sessions Judge, who was transferred, and Mehr Muhammad Siddique Garwa, learned Additional Sessions Judge took over the charge against an existing vacancy and not as a substitute of Malik Khadim Hussain, Additional Sessions Judge. This was a part heard case and on its entrustment, the learned trial Court wrote a letter addressing to the Lahore High Court seeking permission to proceed with the part heard case and the same was adjourned to 13-6-1994. Later on he without awaiting for the reply of the High Court, while relying upon a judgment of this Court, titled Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State PLD 1982 Lah. 168 assumed the jurisdiction of the case and started with the trial.
The entrustment order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, dated 26-5-1994, was challenged through Writ Petition bearing No,516 of 1995. The writ petition was technically succeeded and the order, dated 26-5-1994 was set aside but in exercise of my suo motu jurisdiction, the titled case was entrusted/transferred to the Court of Mr. Muhammad Siddique Garwa, learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial.
7. Now I advert to the ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as the dictation of the case is concerned, it has vehemently been refuted by the learned defence counsel as well as the learned trial Court through its report and parawise comments.
8. I have perused the record. Nothing has been brought on the file in support of the alleged allegations against the Court. It is the duty of the C prosecution to bring the evidence in the Court and if it fails, the Court is competent to adopt the coercive measures to bring the witnesses in the witness-box. The case is as old as of 1990, almost five years have elapsed but the trial could not be concluded for one or the other reason. There must be cogent reasons for transferring the case from one Court to another. The perpetuation of the delaying tactics cannot be allowed. I do not find any substance in the submissions and the same is declined. So far as the objectionable remarks are concerned, that has too been alleged without any. Proof. If the learned Advocate was asked to leave the Court room, the sworn affidavit of the learned counsel should have been attached with the petition. This ground is also repelled.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am not pursuaded to make an order for transferring the case so this petition is dismissed.
' However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously within a month without fail, even if the proceedings are to be taken on day-to-day basis. The trial Court be conscious enough to maintain the decorum of the Court and no untoward incident be allowed to happen in the Court. The lawyers are the part and parcel of the legal/judicial machinery and play a very essential role to reach the just, fair and equitable justice. They should be given full respect during the proceedings. It is also expected from the lawyers to pay full regards and respects to the Court.