2003 PLP 2335 (YLR)
MAKHDOOM AHMED alias ZAMEER AHMAD — Applicant Versus NOOR AHMED and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2335 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed, J |
| Parties | MAKHDOOM AHMED alias ZAMEER AHMAD — Applicant Versus NOOR AHMED and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2335 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 2335 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2335 (YLR) (MAKHDOOM AHMED alias ZAMEER AHMAD — Applicant Versus NOOR AHMED and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehmood-ul-Hassan for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 14th February,
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.561-A & 249-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 463, 465 & 468
National Database and - Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000), Ss. 18, 30 & 31-- Application for quashing of complaint-- Respondent, who was brother of applicant/accused, filed private complaint against applicant alleging that applicant through cheating and forgery had obtained another National Identity Card with different name
Application of applicant fled under S.249 A, Cr. P. C. for his acquittal having concurrently been dismissed by Trial Court and also by Appellate Court in revision, he fled application under S.561-A, Cr. P. C. for quashing of concurrent orders of Courts below
Trial Court dismissed application filed by applicant under 5.249-A, Cr.P.C. simply on the ground that it was premature, without giving any finding on the point of law argued before it
Revisional Court dismissed revision fled against order of Trial Court without examining legal question about maintainability of complaint and disposed of the same by observing that matter required recording of evidence
Respondent/ complainant had already filed suit seeking cancellation of second National Identity Card issued to applicant/accused which was pending adjudication
Complaint against applicant being of forgery and cheating in respect of National Identity Card, offence against applicant/accused was covered by S.30(a) (c) (e) of National Database Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000-- Complaint was not competently filed by respondent against applicant/accused as under S.31 of National Database Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, complaint for offence under said Ordinance had to be filed by Authority itself or by a gazetted officer authorized by it in that behalf
National Identity Card being property of the Federal Government, any wrong committed in respect thereof was an offence against the State and Authority had been designated to file complaint for such offence
On filing suit by respondent for cancellation of second National Identity Card, Authority in its reply had stated that said revised second National Identity Card was correct and had been issued after complying with necessary formalities
Charge against applicant being baseless no probability existed for his conviction
Complaint otherwise incompetently filed was not maintainable and was quashed under S. 561-A, Cr. P. C. in circumstances. Haji Ilyas v. The State 2002 MLD 1038; Muhammad Ali v. Muhammad Aslam 2002 MLD 726; Sanaullah Khan v. The State PLD 2001 Pesh 89; Muhammad Idrees v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 593; Muhammad Ayub alias Ranjha v. District Magistrate/ Deputy Commissioner, Multan 2001 PCr.LJ 1039; Malik Muhammad Ayub Awan v. Akhtar Lodhi, S.H.O., Police Station Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi 2001 PCr.LJ 1196; Muhammad Akram v. The State PLD 2001 Kar. 112; Manzoor Hussain Shah v. The State 1998 SCMR 265; Mst. Said Khan v. Munsif Khan PLD 1992 Pesh. 71 and Haji Ghulam Qadir v. Ghulam Rasool 1998 PCr.LJ. 1031 ref. M. Niamat Ali for Applicant. Mumtaz Ali Khan, A.A.-G.
Judgment & Decree
(a) does not, without reasonable cause, apply for registration required under this Ordinance; (b) conceals, or refuses to furnish, any information he ought to disclose or furnish; (c) fails, without reasonable cause, , to report to any Registration Officer any loss of a card within thirty days of such loss; (d) refuses or fails to produce or surrender a card as required respectively under section 17 or section 18 of this Ordinance or the rules and regulations made thereunder; (e) does not, without reasonable cause, apply for a National Identity Card within ninety days of his attaining the age of eighteen years; or (f) knowingly contravenes any other provision of this Ordinance or the rules or regulations except regulations made under clause (d) of sub section (4) of section 5, shall, in addition to any other penalty to which he may be liable under any other law, be punishable with rigorous imprison-ment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine not exceeding fifty thousand rupees, or with both. (2) Any person who
(a) makes any statement or furnishes any information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false in any material particular or which he does not believe to be true; (b) obliterates or changes any particulars written or printed on any card; (c) forges any card or makes or has in his possession any document so closely resembling a card as to be calculated to deceive; (d) allows any other person to have possession of a card for the custody of which he is responsible; (e) holds more than one card on the same eligibility criteria; or (f) who attests or verifies any statement or information made or furnished for the purpose of this Ordinance which he knows or has reason to believe to be false in any material particular or which he does not believe to be true, shall, in addition to any other penalty to which he may be liable under any other law, be punishable with rigorous 'imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine not exceeding one hundred thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person acting pursuant to a request made by the Authority under section 22.
No Court shall take cognizance of .any offence under this Ordinance except upon complaint in writing made by the Authority or any gazetted officer authorized by it in this behalf." Respondent No.1 has filed private complaint under sections 419, 463, 465 and 468, P.P.C. the substance of which is that the applicant whose name was Makhdoom Ahmed through forgery and cheating obtained second N.I.C. with the name of Makhdoom Ahmad alias Zameer Ahmed in order to occupy shop. The complaint therefore is of forgery and cheating in respect of N.I.C. and offence seems to be covered by section 30 (2)(a), (c) and (e) of the Ordinance, so far the question of filing of complaint by the respondent No. 1 is concerned, it is found that the same is not competently filed as under section 31 of the Ordinance the complaint for offence under the Ordinance has to be filed by authority or by a gazetted officer authorized by it in this behalf. There is wisdom in this provision, the card being property of the Federal Government, any wrong committed in respect of it is an offence against the State and Authority has been designated to file complaint for such offences, if at all the offence is made out. By order dated 24-7-2002 R & P was called. Respondent No. 1 has filed suit for cancellation of second N.I.C. of the applicant in the said suit Registrar of N.I.C. has filed his reply in which it is stated that a revised N.I.C. dated 23-10-1997 was issued to the applicant after complying necessary formalities and is a correct card and it cannot be cancelled. Therefore, as per N.I.C.'s office own view, there is no illegality in issuing of revised N.I.C. to the applicant. There is therefore, no basis for the charge and no probability of the applicant being convicted of the alleged offence. For this added reason also the complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly this criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and Private Complaint No.231 of 2001 pending in the Court 1st Judicial Magistrate, Karachi (Central) is quashed. H.B.T./M-505/K Application allowed.