Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD BASHIR VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal ZullahRaja Afrasiab Khan,Mian Nusrat Ullah
1969 P Cr
1969 P Cr. L J 788
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5155 of 1968, decided on 17th April 1969.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 205 (1) read with S. 4 (r)‑"Pleader"‑Definition‑Any person, may be a relation of accused, can act as pleader in a particular proceeding with Court's permission.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 526‑Transfer of case‑Mere fact that Magistrate passed arc improper or illegal order‑Cannot be a ground for transfer of a case unless such order directly connected with and results in raising of reasonable apprehension in mind of party that justice will not be done.
Raja Afrasiab Khan for Petitioner.
Mian Nusrat Ullah for the State.
ORDER
The only contention that the learned counsel has raised is that the learned Magistrate allowed exemption from appearance to Mst. Zenab Bibi and Mst. Rahmat Bibi respondents and allowed them to appear through Allah Ditta, who is the husband and father respectively of the above‑named respondents. Accord ing to the learned counsel, it was contrary to section 205, Cr. P. C. It is further contended that an objection was raised before the learned Magistrate in this behalf, but he ignoring it observed that he did not find any substance in the complaint and that he would dismiss it.
2. In so far as the latter part of the contention is concerned, the learned Magistrate has denied the fact that he made any observation. And there is no indication in the report so as to suggest that an objection in respect of the appearance of Allah Ditta for the female accused persons was raised before him. The learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for ordering the exemption from appearance of the female accused persons. One reason being that they were females and were to come from Sialkot to attend the Court at Gujrat, and the other was that one of the respondents was absconding and there were no prospects of his being apprehended in the near future. In these circumstances, so far as the exemption is concerned, it is unexceptionable.
3. The next contention of the learned counsel is that Allah Ditta could not be allowed to appear for the female accused persons, because he did not fall within the definition of "pleader" as mentioned in subsection (1) of section 205, Cr. P. C. It is not necessary to examine this question in detail though it is remarked that under the definition of "pleader" as given in section 4(r) of the Cr. P. C., any person, may be a relation, cans act as pleader with the permission of the Court in a particular, proceedings. Whether or not Allah Ditta was permitted to be appointed as a pleader for the female accused persons, is not known to either of the learned counsel appearing. Be that as it, may, the only fact that the learned Magistrate passed an improper or illegal order cannot be a ground for transfer ; unless the, passing of that order is directly connected with and results in raising of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of a party that justice will not be done. This being the only allegation against the learned Magistrate, even if the order is illegal it was passed in good faith. I do not think the learned Magistrate passed it due to any particular favour that he wanted to show to the respon dents. Such an order, in my view, cannot give rise to a reasonable apprehension. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.