Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1976 in Criminal Revision No. 656 of 1969, decided on 30th August 1976.

‑‑ Locus stands‑Petitioner, bona fide purchaser of Compensation Book, found forged and accused tried and convicted on criminal charge-- Petition, held, misconceived and petitioner having no locus standi to challenge order of conviction‑Petition dismissed In limine.

S. 439‑Prosecution duly proving main orders, on whose strength Compensation Book issued to be not a genuine‑Defence evidence merely of formal type‑‑Interference with orders of Courts below declined, in circumstance.

Ch. Hafeez Ahmad for Petitioner.

Akhtar Hussain Siddiqui for Respondent No. 1 (in Criminal Misc. No. 1 of 1976).

Date of hearing: 7th June 1976.

I do not wish to discuss the, facts pertaining to this petition as it is a criminal revision and I find that the appellate Court bas stated the facts in detail and has also discussed the entire material evidence, but before deciding the revision petition, I would first like to dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 1 of 1976, filed by ore; Abdul Hamid under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C.

This petition was filed on 20th May 1976, and it was ordered to be heard along with this criminal revision and Writ Petition No. 14‑R‑76.

2. I have already disposed of the writ petition separately by my order of even date. The background of this petition is that house No. S‑XX 25‑S‑II was initially transferred to Abdul Hamid petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous. He in order to clear the transfer price purchased the, com pensation book of Abdur Rashid petitioner in this criminal revision and utilised a portion of it. Subsequently on an application given by one Bashir Ahmad, the compensation book was found toy be forged, for which Abdur Rashid was hauled up and was tried by the learned Magistrate who by his order dated 7th August 1968 convicted him under section 420/465/ 471, P. P. C. and sentenced him to different terms of imprisonment Against the order of the trial Court Abdul Rashid filed an appeal which was dismis sed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thereafter the petitioner filed this criminal revision.

It was during the pendency of this revision petition that this miscellaneous application was filed.

3. The sole purpose of filing this petition by Abdul Hamid is to obtain a verdict in favour of Abdur Rashid so that not only his conviction is set aside but his compensation book is also restored, because after the compensa tion book had been found to be a forged one, Abdul Hamid was served with a demand notice by the Settlement authorities to clear the transfer price, but as he failed to do so, the house was resumed and put to auction. It was purchased by Mst. Rahim Bibi and after the confirmation of auction she was given the Permanent Transfer Deed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel at full length in this miscellaneous application. In this notice had not been issued and I think the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine on the short ground that it is misconceived. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince me as to what was the locus stands of Abdul Hamid to file this petition, when Abdul Rashid has already challenged the orders of the Courts below by means of criminal revision in his own right. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

5. Sa far as the revision petition is concerned, the convictions and sentences awarded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court were challenged on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove any offence against the petitioner, the evidence led by the prosecution was not free from doubt, the original claim form had not been placed on the record nor even an attested copy of the same was produced, therefore, the conviction of the petitioner was illegal.

6. These contentions have no force, because the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is a well‑considered one. He has discussed the entire evidence and the prosecution has duly proved that the main order on which the petitioner relied and on the strength of which the compensation book was issued to him was not a genuine one. The defence evidence produced by the petitioner was merely of formal type. I do not think, therefore that the orders impugned call for any interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.