This petition has been filed by the complainant under section 526, Cr.P.C. To seek transfer of a case (State v. Shahid and 2 others) from the Court of Mehr Ghulam Farid Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Multan.
2. The trial of the case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was earlier concluded by the judgment dated 8- 9-1983 recorded by Sh. Hafeez-ur-Rehman, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, whereunder accused persons were acquitted. The revision petition filed against that order was accepted by this Court on 26-5-1994 and the case was remanded to the trial Court for retrial, in accordance with law. The accused persons filed appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the same was dismissed on 5-5-1996 with the observation that it was not a case of de novo trial but the retrial is only for the reconsideration of the ocular testimony led by the prosecution in support of the charge.
3. The petitioner (complainant) moved an application under section 528, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Sessions Judge for transferring the case from the Court of Mehr Ghulam Farid Khan, Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that after remand the case has to be decided by the successor trial Court and therefore, it should be tried by the Sessions Judge himself who is successor of all the abolished Courts. This application has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge on the following conclusion:--- As already pointed out, it is not a case to be tried de novo. The Court has to hear the arguments only and render its decision according to the material available on record. In other words, it is a part heard case and subsection 1(A) of section 528, Cr.P.C. Bars its withdrawal from the present Court and entrustment to other Court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner, if so advised, may seek remedy in the Hon'ble High Court. "
4. Sahibzada Farooq A.I Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case has been remanded to the trial Court and Mehr Ghulam Farid Khan, Additional Sessions Judge is neither the trial Court nor the successor of the trial Court and now the case can be heard only by the Sessions Judge himself. On the other hand, Ch. Mehboob Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused persons has submitted that the Court of Mehr Ghulam Farid Khan will be deemed to be trial Court because the learned Sessions Judge has selected it to be the successor trial Court under subsection (3) of section 559, Cr.P.C.
5. Irrespective of the fact whether the Court of Mehr Ghulam Farid Khan is the successor trial Court or not, the fact remains that this Court can transfer the case from one criminal Court to any other criminal Court of competent jurisdiction under section 526, Cr.P.C. In the interest of justice. This is indeed a very old matter relating to an offence which was committed in 1982. Propriety demands that the case should be decided by a Court in which both parties repose full confidence. With this object in view, I asked the learned counsel for the parties to suggest the names of three Additional Sessions Judges in whom they repose confidence for the decision of the case. Accordingly, Sahibzada Farooq A.I Khan and Ch. Mehboob Ahmed, Advocates separately gave names of three Additional Sessions Judges working at Multan. The name of Mr. Atta Muhammad Naz, Additional Sessions Judge is common in the lists provided by I the two learned counsel. It means that Mr. Atta Muhammad Naz, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan is acceptable to both the parties, for the decision of the case. Resultantly, the case is transferred to the file of Mr. Atta Muhammad Naz, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, for decision of the case, in accordance with law.
The transfer application stands accepted in the above terms.