1. ' Present applicant who is complainant in Crime No,/2000 registered with Police Station Nasirabad under sections 302, 324, 34, P.P.C. Seeking transfer of the Sessions Case No,145 of 2000 titled State v.
2. Allandino Kalhoro and others from the Court of learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana to the Court of Sessions Judge, Larkana.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant has contended that the trial Judge is personally interested in the case and has got friendship with the opposite-party viz. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 and he has already formed his opinion with regard to the trial and the conduct of the Presiding Officer has created apprehension in the mind of applicant/complainant that he would not get fair trial at the hands of Presiding Officer, Mr. Soomro has further contended that in support of his transfer application the complainant has filed his personal affidavit stating therein that the trial Judge is personally interested in the case and he has no faith and confidence in the trial Court as he has seen the accused party frequently visiting the chamber of learned trial Judge and his residence.
4. ' On the other hand, Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Korejo, Advocate for Additional Advocate-General for the State has contended that the criminal transfer application is frivolous and no tangible grounds have been assigned by the applicant/complainant for the transfer of the case from the Court of learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, therefore, he has opposed the prayer of the applicant.
5. ' I have considered the arguments rendered by learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the material available on the record. Admittedly, the present applicant has also filed transfer application before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Larkana but without success. I have gone through the contents of criminal transfer application and the affidavit filed by the applicant/complainant and I have not been able to find out any tangible proof against the Presiding Officer whereby it is established by the complainant that he has seen accused party visiting the chamber of Presiding Officer or visiting his residence and no date and time in this regard has been mentioned by the applicant except the stereotype allegations against the Presiding Officer and from where he has gathered that the Presiding Officer is on visiting terms with the accused party and he has taken into his head that he would not get fair justice at the hands of present Presiding Officer, is nothing but eye wash. If this kind of practice is encouraged the last petal of the rose will be withered. Applicant/complainant has made himself liable to be taken to task but on taking lenient view and admonishing him to refrain from such allegations against the Judges without any proof and if he repeated the same in future he will be taken to task. Resultantly, this criminal transfer application has no merit and is dismissed. Above are the reasons for my short order, dated 11-5-2001.