1993 PLP 544 (MLD)

Mufti Abdul Ghani Shah v. The State 1986 MLD 1153; Hrishikesh Dutta v. The State 1969 PCr.LJ 241; Muhammad Shafi v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narowal, etc. PLD 1992 Lah. 178 and Muhammad Bashir v. Ramzan and others 1991 PCr.LJ 1695 ref. Nazamuzzaman Khan for A: G. for Appellant. MA. Zafar for Respondents Date of hearing: 12th October 1992. This is an appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. against the judgment/order, dated 11-3-1989 passed by Syed Muhammad Qasim Wasti, Magistrate Ist Class, Lahore, by which he under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. acquitted all the respondents of charges under section 420/468/471, P.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 4-7-1982 a Bailiff of the Civil Court went at a shop situated in Shah Alam Market, Lahore owned by the complainant in possession of Khawaja Muhammad Jamil, respondent as a tenant, to execute the ejectment order against him when Khawaja Manzoor Hussain on the basis of a forged agreement to sell dated 24-4-1982 and a receipt of Rs.80,000 as part payment of the sale price to the complainant persisted to retain possession of the shop and thereafter filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against the complainant, but later on the suit was withdrawn on 27-7-1983. Pending civil suit the complainant moved the Martial Law Authorities against the respondents and as a result thereof a case under section 420/468/471, P.P.C. was registered against the respondents vide F.I.R. No.19 dated 28-6-1983 at Police Station Mochi Gate, Lahore on the complaint of Sh. Inayat Ullah. The challan was submitted in the Court and after framing of charge the learned trial Court on an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. acquitted all the respondents on the ground that by virtue of section 195, Cr.P.C. the complaint should have been filed by the Civil Court itself before whom the, documents in question were produced and that no criminal proceedings in the matter against the respondents could proceed except under section 476, P.P.C. read with section 195, Cr.P.C. Hence there was no probability of conviction of the respondents. He relied on Mufti Abdul Ghani Shah v. The State 1986 MLD 1153 and Hrishikesh Dutta v. The State 1969 PCr.LJ 241.

3. It has been urged before me by the learned Public Prosecutor that the impugned order is not sustainable under the law and the case be remanded back to the trial Court for proceeding in accordance with law. He relied on Muhamrnai] .Shaft v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narowal, etc. PLD 1992 Lah. 179 on the similar points of fact and law.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I hold that the I impugned order was illegal and is not sustainable in law. Muhammad Shafi's case put forth by the Public Prosecutor is on all fours. I set aside the impugned order. The present case is 9 years old. Some of the respondents accused namely Muhammad Jamil, Hamid Ahmad and Niaz Hussain died during pendency of the instant appeal. Rest of the respondents/accused have been suffering the agonies of protracted and arduous trial for several years. Therefore, under the circumstances, although the impugned order is set aside, yet the case is not being remanded to the trial Court as per observation made in Muhammad Bashir v. Ramzan and others 1991 PCr.LJ 1695. With these remarks, the present appeal stands disposed of. H.B:T./S-194/L Order accordingly.