'MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to decide Criminal Petitions Nos.394-L and 395-L of 2000, as questions of law and facts are common in both of them.
2. Both the petitions according to the office report are barred by four days. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these cases and the reasons given in the applications seeking condonation of delay, the delay is condoned.
3. The facts of the case are that a bail application of the brother of the petitioner who was involved in a murder case was being argued before the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha when the petitioner who was present there allegedly interrupted the Court proceedings. He tendered apology which was not accepted by the Court and the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict him there and then under section 228, P.P.C. And sentenced him to two months' imprisonment.
4. The order of the learned Sessions Judge was challenged by the petitioner before the Lahore High Court through an appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 16-7-1999 against which Criminal Appeal No,50 of 2000 by leave of this Court filed by him was accepted through judgment dated 15-3-2000 on the ground that the maximum sentence which the learned Sessions Judge could award under section 228, P.P.C. Was fine not exceeding Rs,200 and in default of payment, the convict could be ordered to undergo one month's S.I. The learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha was directed to pass such order as may be permissible under the law if deemed fit.
5. It appears that in pursuance of this judgment of the Court, the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha issued notice to the petitioner in the matter for appearance on 14-4-2000 and what was the actual report of the process-server, the same has not been mentioned in the order dated 14-4-2000 by the learned Sessions Judge 'whereas it. Was only observed "that the reports as received against the petitioner on the process issued did not depict a whole image of his conduct". On this, without examining the process-server in order to ascertain the real facts as to in which circumstances the objectionable part of this report was made, the leaned Sessions Judge proceeded to pass an order directing the petitioner to submit his bond in the sum of Rs, one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court failing which he was ordered to be detained in lock-up till the submission of bail bond and adjourned the case for further proceedings. This order was challenged by the petitioner through Criminal Revision No,267 of 2000 in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed through judgment dated 22-5-2000 which has been challenged in Criminal P.L.A. No,395-L of 2000.
6. The petitioner also moved application before the Lahore High Court seeking transfer of the case from the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sargodaha stating that though he had no personal complaint against the learned Presiding Officer of the Court but due to the fact that he was directed to submit bail bond in the sum of Rs,one lac with two sureties each in the like amount failing which to remain in civil prison till the said bond had been furnished, he had entertained an apprehension that he may not get fair treatment, for in a. Case which the maximum punishment was imposition of fine of Rs,200, he had been ordered to furnish bond in huge amount which amounted to deprive him of the right to defend the case.
7. This application was also dismissed through judgment dated 22-5-2000 by the Lahore High Court which has been challenged in Criminal P.L.A. No,394-L of 2000.
8. It is well-settled law that the transfer of a case pending in a competent Court could not be claimed as matter of routine or at the wish of any of the parties unless it was apparent on the face of the record that party seeking transfer could not get fair and just treatment/trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the abovementioned circumstances are sufficient to furnish strong basis for entertainment of an apprehension by the petitioner that he may not be fairly treated.
9. We called upon Miss Yasmeen Sehgal, learned Assistant Advocate-General who happens to be present in the Court in connection with some other case. She submitted that the contents of report of the process-server on the basis of which the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to pass order dated 14-4-2000 are not available. She, however, says that calling upon in such a matter the petitioner to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs,one lac with two sureties each in the like amount and in case of failure to do so, to remain in prison was certainly an extraordinary order but since the petitioner in the transfer application had clearly mentioned that he had no personal grievance against the learned Presiding Officer which establishes his bona fide, therefore, in the interest of justice, the case may be transferred.
10. The contents of the report of the process-server which persuaded the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodaha to pass such an extraordinary order are still not available nor the same have been mentioned in the order itself. No allegation had been made against the person of the learned Presiding Officer of the Court in the transfer application and the transfer of the case was sought on the ground that the manner in which the proceedings were taken and orders passed, a person could legitimately entertain an apprehension that he would not be treated fairly. Without expressing any opinion as to whether in such circumstances, the petitioner was justified in entertaining an apprehension that fair trial shall not take place keeping in view over all circumstances of the case, we feel persuaded to hold that it is expedient for the ends of justice that the case is transferred from the said Court to another Court under section 526 (1)(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. For the foregoing reasons, both the petitions are converted into appeals and accepted, order dated 14-4-2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh disposal of the matter in accordance with law. Petitioner who is present in the Court today submitted that he is ready to tender unconditional apology and he may be pardoned. It will be open to the trial Court to take into consideration the said apology if tendered before it and pass appropriate order in its discretion uninfluenced by as the previous proceedings. The case is transferred from the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad before which the petitioner shall appear on his own responsibility on 4-9-2000 for further proceedings.
' Leave petitions converted into appeals and .