Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.424-B of 1982, decided on 17th April, 1982.

---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471--Bail, grant of--Forged power of attorney allegedly registered in favour of accused--Case reported to Police after about 28 months--Real impersonator not yet traced--Investigation to take long time to finalize- Most of evidence collected or intended to be produced, comprising of documentary evidence--No apprehension of its being tampered by accused--Opinion of Handwriting Expert still awaited--Bail granted in circumstances.

Faiz Muhammad Khosa for Petitioner.

Khadim Nadeem Malik for Petitioner (in Cr. M. No. 437-B of 1982).

Ashfaq Ahmad Khan for the State.

Mazhar Muhammad son of Nazar Muhammad caste Sheikh resident of Jhang Saddar, district Jhang and Muhammad Abdullah son of Abdul Rahim caste Kamboh resident of Block No.11, Khanewal, district Multan, have moved separate petitions for the grant of bail in case F.I.R. No.50, dated 2-2-1982 under sections 419/420/467, 468/471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Khanewal. Earlier, their petitions were dismissed by the Ilaqa Magistrate as well as by the Sessions Judge. Hence this petition. I propose to dispose of both these petitions Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 424-B of 1982 and 437-B of 1982 by this single order.

2. According to the F.I.R., complainant's father Mubarak Ali who died in Chak No.2741GB on 19-11-1977 had left behind some landed property in village Jhirki, district Jhang besides certain other villages. The complainant did not visit village Jhirki for a long time being busy with the management of his landed property in other villages. He visited village Jhirki in the second week of October, 1979 and found that his landed property measuring 190 Kanals in that village had been occupied by Muhammad Aslam. Inquiry revealed that Muhammad Aslam had purchased that land as a bona fide purchaser for value. The complainant approached the revenue officers and learnt that a power of attorney on behalf complainant's father (late Mubarak Ali) was registered with Sub- Registrar, Khanewal, on 29th October, 1979, wherein Mazhar Muhammad, petitioner, was nominated as his general attorney. Late Mubarak Ali was allegedly identified before the Sub-Registrar by Muhammad Kabir, Advocate.

3. During the investigations, it transpired that on the basis of the aforesaid power of attorney purported to have been executed by late Mubarak Ali, Mazhar Muhammad, petitioner had sold out the land in question to one Siraj through Mutation No.431 dated 8-12-1979 for a sum of Rs.50,000. Siraj further alienated this land in favour of Muhammad Aslam, aforementioned, for a sum of Rs.80,000 through Mutation No.441, dated 12th July, 1981.

4. The complainant claimed that his father had never executed the aforesaid power of attorney in-favour of Mazhar Muhammad, petitioner, and that the said document was forged by the petitioner for his personal illegal gains. As for Muhammad Abdullah, petitioner, is concerned, according to the prosecution, he is a marginal witness of the aforesaid forged power of attorney.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mazhar Muhammad, petitioner, contends that neither the forged power of attorney was relatable to him nor did he act as general attorney of late Mubarak Ali to sell out the land to Siraj. According to him, the signatures purported to be that of Mazhar Muhammad, petitioner, on Mutation No.431 are not his and have rather been forged by his enemies. He next contends that the petitioner is a graduate and is heading an educational institute. He also contends that there is a delay of 2 years in lodging the F.I.R. Lastly, he contends that the petitioner is in jail since 5-2-1982 and the investigation would take long to finalize and there is no apprehension of tampering with the evidence as most of it comprises the documentary evidence.

6. Learned counsel for Muhammad Abdullah, petitioner, contends that he has been made victim of the party faction prevailing in the village. According to him, the petitioner had never signed the forged power of attorney as a marginal witness. A cursory glance of this document shows that signature of Muhammad Abdullah, petitioner, have been added at some later stage. He has produced a certified copy of the said power of attorney wherein signatures of Muhammad Abdullah do not figure.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State has strenuously resisted these petitions by saying that the offences with which the petitioners are charged are punishable with 10 years' R.I. and thus, the case of the petitioners fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

8. I have weighed the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

9. Admittedly, the occurrence was reported to the police after about 28 months of the registration of the aforesaid forged power of attorney. The Investigating Officer has informed me that he has not been able to trace out the real person who had impersonated for late Mubarak Ali before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the said documenE and that it will take some time to finalize the investigation. Muhammad Kabir, Advocate, who allegedly had identified late Mubarak Ali before the sub-registrar has since been granted bail by the Sessions Judge. It appears to me that most of the evidence collected against the petitioners " or intended to be produced at the trial comprise documentary evidence and there is no apprehension that the same will be tampered with if the petitioners are released on bail. I also feel that it wilt take long time to finalize the investigation and the trial as well opinion of the handwriting expert is still awaited, as to the genuineness or otherwise of the document.

9. As far Muhammad Abdullah, petitioner, is concerned, his case clearly falls under section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. because it needs further inquiry as to whether his signature existed on the aforesaid document before its registration or not.

10. For the ,foregoing reasons, I accept both the petitions and direct that the petitioners be released on bail provided they furnish a bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal.

S . A . Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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