Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Section: S. 526 read with S. 90 (b)

  (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),   S. 526 read with S. 90 (b)-Magistrate issuing bailable warrant without waiting for return of summon. issued in first instance-Not justified Good ground for transfer of case.   (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),   S. 526-Magistrate not considering accused's application for calling investigation papers concerning complainant from outside district-Ground for transfer.   JUDGMENT   This is an application under section 526, Cr. P. C., requesting that the case pending against the applicant before the S. D. M., Nawabshah, be transferred to any other Magistrate, as the applicant -has reasonable apprehension that he will not be fairly dealt with, if the case is allowed to proceed before the S.D.M. The learned A. A.-G. for the State has no objection if the case is transferred to any other Magistrate in the same town.   The grounds stated in this application are:   That the learned Magistrate without waiting for the summons to return, issued bailable warrant against him.   That his application to the Magistrate requesting that the investigation papers concerning the complainant with the Karachi Police, be sent for and copies given to him to prepare his defence, has not been considered.   That whets he applied to the S.D.M. notifying his intention to him that he wouldapply for transfer of the case the S. D. M. called upon him to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000 and not in the sum of Rs. 200 as contemplated by law.   That the S. D. M. has shown bias in that he had asked the S. P. to suspend him.   The learned counsel for the applicant drops the ground No. 3 as the bond which the applicant was called upon to execute was in the sum of Rs. 200 and not Rs. 2,000. As for ground No. 4 the learned Magistrate in his remarks has stated that he wrote to the S. P. because there was a complaint made to him that the applicant was threatening the P L D 1961 (W witness with dire consequences if they gave evidence against him. In my opinion this action on the part of the S. D. 1bI. cannot be considered as male fide one, particularly when the complainant' was…