SC approached against transfer of cases, adjournments

ISLAMABAD: A citizen has approached the Supreme Court to complain against the practice of transfer of trial from one court to another and frequent adjournments under pressure by lawyers at the behest of land grabbers.

The petition was filed in the Supreme Court on Friday by Muhammad Sharif, who lives in Sukkur. He named the Sindh High Court’s registrar, a member of the SHC’s inspection team, Sukkur District and Sessions Judge Soh­ail Muhammad Leg­hari, Additional District and Sessions Judge Muha­mmad Islam-ul-Haq Arain and Tarique Ali Sanghroo as respondents.

The petitioner said his son-in-law was murdered by an alleged land grabber in 2014. The case was being frequently transferred from one court to another allegedly under pressure from different lawyers at the behest of a “land grabber” — a practice which had “ruined the judicial system and should not be allowed to continue”.

The petitioner alleged that Rao Shakir had already been declared an absconder, while his two accomplices were confined in Central Jail, Sukkur.

He argued that his case was very “heinous” as it involved murder, but despite the passage of six years, the court had not even initiated the proceedings against the absconding accused persons.

Petitioner accuses lawyers of getting his son-in-law’s murder case transferred frequently

These lawyers often misbehave with Additional District and Sessions Judge Tarique Ali Sanghroo, the petitioner said.

He pleaded that Articles 202 and 203 of the Constitution vest the powers of supervision over the performance of all classes of courts in the country, whereas Section 528 of CrPC bars a district and sessions judge from transferring a case pertaining to a court of an additional sessions judge.

He can only withdraw the same from the assistant sessions judges (Magistrate Section-30) if an unavoidable reason exists.

Likewise, Section 526 of CrPC clearly states that powers to transfer cases pertaining to a trial in a sessions court is the domain of the high court, the petition contended.

It has become a practice that when a judicial officer taking over a new case is distrusted by the accused party, a series of episodes erupts during proceedings in which initially allegations of distrust are levelled against judicial officers while a few judicial officers themselves decline to hear the matter, the petition regretted.

“It is a matter of grave concern for us that we are dealing with an issue which has become epidemic at the district judiciary and if this practice is allowed to continue, it might hamper the judicial system. It will leave no room for the pillars of the state to have any chance to rectify it in future,” it said.

A perusal of the record on court file reveals that the petitioner’s case had been transferred to different judicial officers for different reasons and at least 100 times the proceedings on the application of adjournment were postponed.

The petition recalled that a few days ago, accused Mehar Jatoi misbehaved with the applicant party in court premises “with the connivance of 30-40 persons” and attacked the petitioner party.

But the judicial officer presiding over the court at that time took no action against the accused, according to the petition.

It alleged that accused Rao Shakir had hired a team of advocates who, in order to save the accused from clutches of law, play different practices to pressure the judges by using harsh language.