| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 2062 2014 SLD 2062 2014 PCRLJ 959 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Transfer Application No.87 of 2011, decision dated: 25-04-2013
AFTAB AHMAD GORAR AND SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JJ
Ghulam Shabir Shar for Applicant. Syed Sardar Ali Rizvi, A.P.G. for the State. Noor Hussain Malak for
Respondents
Criminal Transfer Application No.87 of 2011, decision dated: 25-04-2013
AFTAB AHMAD GORAR AND SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JJ
Ghulam Shabir Shar for Applicant. Syed Sardar Ali Rizvi, A.P.G. for the State. Noor Hussain Malak for
Respondents
BISHAR AHMED---Applicant
VS
Syed SIKANDAR ALI SHAH alias SHER and 3 others
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 526 & 497---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 23---Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court transferring case to Sessions Court while deciding a bail application under S. 497, Cr.P.C. without issuing notice to the complainant---Legality---Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court while passing such order deprived the complainant from right of hearing---No notice was issued to the complainant for the bail application--- Case could not be transferred without providing opportunity of hearing to the other side, thus Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court had negated basic principle of law that one could not be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem)---Impugned order of Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court was set aside in circumstances and case was returned back to the Anti-Terrorism Court for passing of fresh order on the point of jurisdiction after hearing the parties under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. ORDER AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this criminal transfer application, applicant has impugned order dated 22-10-2011, whereby learned Special Judge, while deciding bail application, transferred Special Case No.116 of 2008 (Re. State v. Sikandar Ali Shah and others) from the Court of Anti-Terrorism Khairpur to Sessions Judge Khairpur under section 23 of A.T.A. 1997. 2. Learned counsel for applicant/complainant inter alia contends that learned Judge of Anti-Terrorism Khairpur, has passed impugned order while hearing a bail application, without affording chance of being heard to the complainant side as no notice of bail application was issued to the complainant party. He further contends that it is a case of scheduled offence and cannot be transferred to an ordinary Court after framing of charge against the accused persons. 3. Mr. Malak, learned counsel for respondent/accused supported the impugned order and submitted that order passed by learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, is in accordance with law and needs no interference. 4. Learned A.P.G opposed the impugned order and submitted that impugned order has been passed in haste, against the law. He further contended that learned Judge has passed the order in a bail application without issuing notice to…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492