' Muhammad Maskeen petitioner by means of this transfer application, under section 526, Cr. P. C., seeks transfer of a criminal case, under section 379/447/506, P. P. C. In which he is a complainant against respondent& Nos. 2 and 3, now pending in the Court of Mr. Zubair Masood, Magistrate Ist Class, Lahore.
2. The grounds urged in support of this petition need not be repeated. The sum and substance of this petition is that the learned Magistrate conducted himself in such a manner which gave the petitioner a genuine apprehension that he would not get a fair and impartial trial at the hands of the learned Magistrate. The petitioner alleged that not once but more than once he was present and so were the other eye-witnesses, but the Magistrate did not record the evidence and hurriedly adjourned the case while there was sufficient Court time to record the evidence and as a matter of fact on one occasion after adjourning the case of the petitioner he proceeded to record ,-evidence in other cases. These adjournments were unnecessary and could be utilised by the accused to influence the prosecution witnesses so that they may not depose the truth. It was further submitted that even otherwise, the Magistrate was not taking any judicial interest in the proceedings because he started with the case by recording the evidence of the investigating officer which is not the normal practice.
3. I have heard the petitioner who is present in person as well as the two respondents and the State Counsel. The State Counsel opposed the transfer, whereas respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that they have no objection to the transfer provided a case for transfer is made out in accordance with law.
4. Most of the averments in this transfer application are admitted by the Magistrate but he tried to justify his stand by giving an explanation which to my mind is not satisfactory. For instance, in reply to grounds (d) and (e), he submitted as under:- "(d) It is correct that on 26-7-77, there was no grave urgency to adjourn the case at 8-45 a.m However, there was ample justification to adjourn the case as the P. Ws. Had not appeared uptil 8- 45 a.m. It is correct that regular Court work starts at 8-00 a.m. Nevertheless, all witnesses except doctors are required to be present in court at 7-30 a.m.
(e) It is correct that the statement of the Investigating Officer has been recorded first; but this was done as the PSI and the counsel for the accused had no objection to the examination of the Investigating Officer at an earlier stage. It is correct that Sarfraz Khan Inspector was examined on 2-7-77 in lieu of Mohammad Latif Bajwa ASI/CIA (deceased) without first recording the statement of the process-server
5. It is essential that judicial proceedings must be conducted in a solemn manner. I think the learned Magistrate acted with unnecessary haste in adjourning the case in the early hours, especially when he had no other important and urgent duty to perform. The conduct of a Presiding Officer plays an important role in holding a fair and impartial trial. He, therefore, must not act in a manner which creats doubt in the mind of either side about his impartiality.
The learned Magistrate in the instant case has no doubt been very frank, and sincere in his reply, nevertheless, I think in the interest of justice it is now more appropriate that the case be tried by some other Magistrate. I would, therefore withdraw this case from the file of the learned Magistrate and direct that the same be entrusted to Mr. Sarfrazul Haq Beg, Corporation Magistrate, Lahore, for trial, who is directed to conclude it as early as possible and if need be, the proceedings may be conducted from day-to-day.