1991 P Cr (PLP)

"The object of this provision of law is to prevent improper or reckless prosecution by private persons for offences in connection with the administration of justice. To attract the applicability of clause (c) the fulfilment of following requirements are necessary:- (i) That the offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court. (ii) That the offence is committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence. (iii) That the said offence falls under section 463, or 471 or 475 or 476, P.P.C. It is, however, essential that all these conditions should be satisfied before invoking the provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C."

6. Admittedly the original agreement was placed on record of the Civil Court on 25-11-1989. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged on 24-9-1986 long before the production of the original sale agreement in Court. On the face of the record the provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. were not attracted when the cognizance was taken in this case against the applicants and respondents Nos.3 to

8. The respondent No.8 instead of challenging the order of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court once again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court through applicants Nos.1 and 2 by twisting the facts. An indirect attempt has been made to get the earlier judgment reviewed from this Court through this application filed under section 561-A, Cr. P.C. (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.356 of 1989) touching the same subject-matter. There is ample authority in respect of the proposition that right of review is not available in criminal proceedings and the following cases may be cited with advantage:- (1) Raju and another v. Emperor A I R 1928 Lahore 462; (2) Rehmat Ali alias Lunda v. The State 1971 S C M R 513; (3) Juan Sullivan v. The State 1971 S C M R 618; (4) Khan Muhammad v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 578; (5) Rahim Jan v. Ahmad Jan and another 1986 P Cr. L J 122; (6) Faizullah and another v. Mst. Pervez Akhtar and 3 others P L D 1987 Azad J and K 29; (7) Niazi and 3 others v. Ghulam Dastgir and another 1987 P Cr. L J 1432; and (8) Muhammad Akbar alias Akoo v. Shakoor Alam and 2 others 1988 P Cr. L J 2428.

7. It may further be added that by merely placing the original sale agreement on record of the civil suit on a date subsequent to the registration of the case and after the decision of the earlier application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the bar of section 195, Cr.P.C. will not be attracted and the legal position will be the same which existed at the time of decision of earlier, application (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.7 of 1989).

8. During the course of arguments Mr. Imran Ahmed, learned counsel for applicants has contended that in order to avoid conflict of decisions, the criminal proceedings pending against the above persons may be stayed till the civil suit pending between the parties is finally adjudicated upon. He has placed reliance upon the case of Abdul Haleem v. The State reported in 1982 S C M R

988. Mr. Gul Zaman Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.2, while opposing the prayer of stay of the proceedings made on behalf of applicants has submitted that no such application was moved Before the trial Court, and consequently it will be premature to consider it in these proceedings filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.' It was also pleaded on behalf of respondent No.2 that the stay of proceedings can only be directed where judgment in the civil suit as well as in criminal case will almost be the same. Reliance is placed upon the cases of Mst. Muni v. Habib Khan, reported in P L D 1956 Lah. 403, Syed Muhammad Ahmed v. The State reported in 1972 S C M R 85 and Rehmat Ullah v. Abdul Aziz and another, reported in 1974 P Cr. L J 541.

9. Since the prayer of stay was not made before the trial Court, I am unable to consider this prayer at this stage. It will, however, be open to applicants or any of respondents Nos.3 to 8 to seek such relief before the trial Court, which will be considered on its own merits.

10. In the result the application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. fails, and is dismissed accordingly. SA./S-746/K Petition dismissed.