2005 PLP 3186 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.

Through this criminal revision the petitioner seeks annulment of the order dated 14-5-2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, whereby petitioner's prayer for initiation of criminal proceedings against respondents Nos.1 and 2 for submitting forged Wakalatnama on 20-4-2005 on behalf of respondent No.2 in bail application in case F.I.R. No.351 of 2004 under sections 406, 419, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C., was disallowed.

2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order was mainly persuaded by the fact that as the respondent No.2 had admitted to have appointed the respondent No.1 as his counsel and had also owned the signatures on the Wakalatnama submitted by respondent No. 1, hence, in the absence of any wrongful loss caused to the petitioner or enjoying wrongful gain by the respondent due to submission of said alleged forged Wakalatnama, no proceedings could be initiated mainly on the whim of the petitioner.

3. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed that without determination of. factual controversy as to whether or not the said Wakalatnama contained genuine signatures of respondent No.2, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to dismiss petitioner's application in a summary manner.

4. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel and perused the relevant record.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing petitioner's application has correctly held that when the execution of document i.e. Wakalatnama by respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent No.1 is admitted, no question of commission of offence arises at all, especially when the petitioner has not pointed out any wrongful loss caused to him by the said power of attorney or for that matter respondent No.2 obtained any wrongful gain in consequence thereof. Even in criminal matters, a lawyer can appear on the oral instructions of a party. Since the respondent No.2 in unequivocal terms admitted to have appointed respondent No.1 as his attorney and also owned his signatures on the said Wakalatnama resulting neither in any wrongful loss to the petitioner or conferring any wrongful advantage to respondent No.2, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly turned down the request of the petitioner. Even otherwise, since proceedings in terms of sections 195(1)(c) and 476, Cr.P.C. as well as under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. could be initiated only at the instance of concerned Court which was the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the present case, and it was for the said Court to decide whether or not to launch prosecution against the respondent, this Court cannot compel the said learned Additional Sessions Judge to initiate proceedings against the respondents. Reliance is placed on a Full Bench judgment of this Court "Muhammad Shafi v. D.S.P." PLD 1992 Lahore 178 and "Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Razzaq and others" PLD 2005 Lahore

386. Hence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed no illegality or irregu larity while passing the impugned order.

6. Finally it may not be out of place to mention here that offences under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. being non-cognizable and if the Court before whom the alleged offences were committed did not feel it proper to prosecute the respondents, this Court cannot compel the said Court to file complaint against the respondents. I am therefore, satisfied that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing petitioner's application neither suffer from any illegality nor jurisdictional defect. This petition as such is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./A-519/L Petition dismissed.