1991 PCr (PLP)

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 denied the allegations against them. Muhammad Shafiq, however, admitted to have filed suit for Specific Performance of the Contract against the respondents on the basis of the disputed agreement to sell. He denied that the agreement was forged or that he used it as genuine, knowing the same to be forged. Dr. Muhammad Rafiq tendered documents Exhs. D.A. to D.F. in his defence. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and convicted the petitioner under section 471, P.P.C. and sentenced him to 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 in default thereof further R.I. for six months. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal and the respondents filed revision against the acquittal of the two co-accused before the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, who while dismissing the revision against acquittal also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the conviction and sentence, hence this Criminal Revision No.13 of 1985 riled by the petitioner and Criminal Miscellaneous No.80-M of 1985 under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge passed in revision.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction of the petitioner is mainly based on the judgment of Civil Judge passed in the civil suit, which was not relevant in a criminal case. The learned counsel for the State has not only supported the conviction of the petitioner but has also argued that respondents Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted without any legal and factual justification.

6. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that only Malik Khadim Hussain, Civil Judge (P.W.1) has appeared for the prosecution. He had not decided the suit in which the alleged forged document was produced and used. Mr. Ahmadyar Lali, Civil Judge, who had tried the suit and had delivered the judgment was not examined. There is no independent evidence of the commission of forgery by the petitioner. The judgment of the Civil Judge given in the civil suit was/is not relevant under the relevant provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, which may be reproduced advantageously:-- Article 55.

A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof-- that any legal character which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation; that any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when such judgment, order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person; that any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had ceased or should cease: and that anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property. Article 56.

Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Article 55 are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state. Article 57.

Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Articles 54, 55 and 56 are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Order." It is, thus, very much obvious that judgment passed by the Civil Court was not relevant. This being the position, there is no option but to accept this revision and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The connected revision automatically fails. Order accordingly. N.H.Q./M-2798/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.