2010 P Cr (PLP)

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----Ss. 419/468/471---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Cheating by personation, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F.I.R.---Mere preparation or issuance of the certificate in question by the Advocate, though with some mistaken date, had hardly affected the complainant or his case---Said certificate had only carried some factual position and it had nowhere suggested that' after filing of the bail application mentioned therein, even bail had been granted to the accused---Fault, therefore, lay with the Investigating Officer who had misconstrued a simple and straightforward Certificate as a Robkar or a bail granting order---Said Advocate through a sworn affidavit had fully owned the execution and issuance of the certificate, which in no way had indicated about grant of bail to accused by High Court---No offence at all was made out against the petitioner in the said factual circumstances of the case and continuation of further proceedings on the basis of the impugned F.I.R. would never result in ultimate conviction, rather apart from being continuous untoward harassment for the petitioner it would waste the precious time of the court---F.I.R. was quashed accordingly.
• Muhammad Akbar Cheema for Petitioner.
• 2. Briefly the facts are that Ch. Nadim Haider Kahlun, Advocate had prepared a Certificate dated 13-10-2009 to the effect that Muhammad Ibrahim petitioner has filed pre-arrest bail before the Lahore High Court, Lahore in case F.I.R. No.943 under sections 324, 337-F(1), 337-A(i), 337-L(ii), 148, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Nishatabad, Faisalabad and that he (Ch. Nadim Haider Kahlun) was a co-counsel along with Mr. Zafar Iqbal Awan Advocate in the said bail petition. It was pursuant to this Certificate that another accused Muhammad Ashraf who was already under arrest, was released by the Investigating Officer by making an entry in the daily Roznamcha to that effect. According to the complainant, since by that time no bail application had been filed in the High Court, the Certificate was bogus which was used and the instant F.I.R. was got lodged by Munir Ahmad respondent No.1.
• 3. The contention of learned counsel seeking quashment of the F.I.R, is that said Certificate was not a bogus document, rather its preparation and issuance has been admitted by Ch. Nadim Haider Kahlun, Advocate who swore an affidavit that he had very rightly issued the said Certificate after having been conveyed by Mr. Zafar Iqbal Chohan, Advocate. It is therefore, argued that when the Executant himself admits the issuance of said Certificate, there was no question of its false preparation by the petitioner. It is next argued that the certificate was based on factual position and it was nowhere mentioned that bail had been granted to the accused, as such, if the accused was released on the strength of that very certificate, it was the mistake of the Investigating Officer himself and none else.
• 4. On tile other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the writ petition on the ground that by the time said certificate was issued, no bail application had been filed in the Lahore High Court and as such it was a clear misstatement of facts and the accused are open to legal criminal consequences, but the learned Assistant Advocate-General has not been able to seriously controvert the above assertions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
• "It is hereby certified that Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim son of Allah Bakhsh Jutt by Caste resident of 49-JB district Faisalabad filed pre-arrest bail in Lahore High Court, Lahore, in case F.I.R. No.943/09 under sections 324, 337-F(i), A(i), L(ii), 148, P.P.C. P.S. Nishatabad, Faisalabad. Muhammad Zafar Chohan, Advocate Lahore has filed above said bail application. I am co-counsel in above mentioned case, in Lahore High Court, Lahore."
• The authenticity and genuineness of said certificate becomes undoubted, when we go through the affidavit sworn by Ch. Nadim Haider Kahlun, Advocate who in clear and categorical terms admits the execution and issuance of said certificate by him. This affidavit has not been disputed by learned counsel for the complainant also. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the complainant the said certificate was issued on 13-10-2009 showing filing of bail application, whereas, actually the bail application was filed 15-10-2009 i.e. after issuance of the said certificate, is concerned, to know about the real situation the original file of Criminal Miscellaneous No.13436-B/2009 was summoned and a perusal thereof, shows that on its bottom it carries the date 9-10-2009 and even the contents of the affidavit attached to said bail application were verified/attested by the Oath Commissioner on 9-10-2009. As such, mere preparation or issuance of this Certificate, though with some mistaken date; hardly affected the complainant or his case, because this certificate only carried some factual position and it nowhere suggested that after filing of such bail application even bail has been granted to the accused persons. In these circumstances, the fault lay with the Investigating Officer who took and considered that simple certificate as indication about grant of bail by this Court. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is believed that it was an incorrect certificate, after the above discussed affidavit by\ Mr. Nadim Haider Kahlun, Advocate fully owning the issuance and execution of that certificate, hardly anything adverse was left against the present accused. Again it was the Investigating Officer who misconstrued a straightforward certificate, as if it was a Robkar or bail granted order.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree