2007 PLP 2071 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR alias BAKOLA and 6 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2071 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. A. Shahid Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BASHIR alias BAKOLA and 6 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2071 (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 2007 PLP 2071 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. A. Shahid Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2071 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD BASHIR alias BAKOLA and 6 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zafar for Petitioners Nos.2 to 7.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468 & 471
F.I.R. showed that predecessor-in- interest of accused persons had sold a piece of land to complainant through a registered sale-deed and had delivered its possession to complainant
Subsequently a dispute arose between vendee/complainant and Evacuee Trust Property Department which ended after 26 years
Accused neither became party to the proceedings nor did they produce any document
Accused were alleged to have prepared a forged registered sale deed showing alienation of disputed land in favour of their relative and that on the basis of said sale-deed, one of the accused persons got registered a general power of attorney in his favour from legal heirs of said relative of accused, filed a suit for declaration and obtained ex parte decree deceitfully
Evidence on record had shown that accused did not appear to be concerned with preparation of alleged forged sale deed which was executed more than 30 years back by their predecessor-in-interest
Accused, in circumstances did not appear to be directly involved in preparation of alleged sale- deed
Case being fit for allowing concession of pre-arrest bail to accused, ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him, was confirmed. Gohar Rafique for the Complainant. Miss Azra Parveen, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Akhtar Hussain, S.-I. Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore with record.
Judgment & Decree
M. A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.
Muhammad Bashir alias Bakola, his five sons, namely, Muhammad Irfan, Muhammad Rizwan, Muhammad Imran, Muhammad Nazir alias Jeera, Muhammad Shaban alia Jagoo and one Sheikh Shahid son of Sheikh Abdul Hameed through this petition applied for bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.1231 of 2006 dated 14-10-2006 registered at Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore- under sections 420/ 468/471, P.P.C.
2. According to the F.I.R. Chiragh Din, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.1 to 6 had sold a piece of land to Mian Iftikhar-ud-Din, complainant through a registered sale-deed dated 16-5-1973 and had delivered its possession to the complainant. The said sale-deed was also given effect in the Revenue Record through mutation No.5473 dated 25-6-1973. A dispute arose between the vendee and the Evacuee Trust Property Department which ended after 26 years. The petitioners neither became party to the proceedings nor did they produce any document. Allegedly the petitioners prepared a forged registered sale-deed dated 23-12-1972 showing alienation of the disputed land in favour of Sheikh Abdul Hameed son of Ghulam Natti (father of Sheikh Shahid/petitioner No.7). On the basis of this sale-deed Muhammad Irfan/petitioner No.2 obtained got registered a general power of attorney in his' favour from the legal heirs of Sheikh Abdul Hameed and filed a suit for declaration in the Court of Civil Judge, Lahore and obtained an ex parte decree deceitfully on 17-7-2006. The complainant applied for a copy of the said sale-deed dated 23-12-1972 which the Sub-Registrar declined to supply. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree is stated to be pending adjudication.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and going through the record it has been found that the petitioners do not appear to be concerned with the preparation of the alleged forged sale-deed dated 23-12-1972. It was executed more than 30 years ago by Chiragh Din in favour of Sheikh Abdul Hameed in the presence of two marginal witnesses, namely, Chiragh Muhammad son of Nathu Khan, Muhammad Ibrahim son of Karam Din and the executent was identified by Ghulam Hussain. Muhammad Irfan/ petitioner No.2 is the person in whose favour the legal heirs of Sheikh Abdul 1 Hameed had executed the general power of attorney on the basis of which petitioner No.2 brought a civil suit on behalf of Mst. Shafqat Hameed and three other legal heirs of late Sheikh Abdul Hameed. In this way the petitioners do not appear to be directly involved in the preparation of the sale-deed dated 23-12-1972. During the pendency of this petition the original record of the office of Sub-Registrar pertaining to the disputed document was also requisitioned for examination. Tanvir Ahmed Warraich, Sub-Registrar appeared before this Court on 15-12-2006 and produced the original Bahi Khata in which a copy of the original sale-deed was found on the relevant pages. The Sub-Registrar, however, could not produce the receipt book showing payment of registration fee and also index register so the plea of the, accused that the disputed document had been registered in accordance with law was not found to be altogether unfounded.
4. In view of the record of Sub-Registrar the Investigating Officer got the signatures of the executent compared with the signatures of Chiragh Din on another registered document. As per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory the signatures on the sale-deed dated 23-12-1972 were different in certain characteristics with the signatures on the registered Hiba Nam. This report alone cannot be considered as sufficient at this stage to demolish the presumption attached to a document which is more than 30 years old. Even otherwise the petitioners are not directly linked with the disputed document, therefore, I consider it a fit case for allowing the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. This petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed. H.B.T./M-302/L Bail confirmed.