Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 32/Q of 1986, decided on 22nd October, 1986.
---S. 561-A--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 468 & 471/109- Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss. 82 & 83--Quashing of orders of acquittal passed by Trial Court and revisional Court--Primary evidence available but not produced at trial--Proceedings initiated about 10 years back--Orders of Courts below found justified for want of cogent evidence--Secondary or indirect evidence, held, could not be taken into consideration and could not result in conviction--No injustice or abuse of process of any Court found warranting interference by High Court- -Quashment of orders refused in limine.
Iqbal Ahmad for Petitioner.
A case under section 420/419/468/471/109, P.P.C. and section 82/83 of the Registration Act, 1908 was registered against the respondents as far back as on 29-7-1976. Briefly, the allegation against the respondents was that the house in dispute was got transferred from the name of Mst. Maroof Begum by producing Mai Zenab Bibi respondent No.3 in her place. The respondents were acquitted by the learned Magistrate 1st Class with powers under section 30, Cr.P.C. vide judgment dated 27-8-1980. A revision petition was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide order dated 4-8-1985. The petitioner has now filed this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., for setting aside the orders of the said two Courts.
2. I have perused the record and have heard the arguments. As has been pointed out above the case was initiated about 10 years back and the respondents have been dragged in Courts for so long a period. The documents, i.e. the Registered Sale-Deeds Nos. 7281 and 7282, dated 24-7-1976 are the documents on which it was alleged that the thumb-impressions were affixed by respondent No.3 instead of Mst. Maroof Begum. It has been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even now Mst. Maroof Begum is all alive. Although she is stated to be living abroad yet as the alleged fraud related to her thumb-impressions it was for her to come and deny that the said sale-deeds did not bear her thumb-impressions. Similarly, her thumb impressions should have been got compared with the thumb-impressions on the sale-deed but the prosecution did not do so. As pointed out by the two Courts below the comparison with the thumb-impressions of respondent No.3 was not also brought on file completely as is required by law. The alleged receipt of Rs.17,000 which the complainant is alleged to have obtained from respondent No.1 was also not produced in evidence. For want of production of this primary evidence no secondary or indirect evidence could be taken into consideration and of course no such evidence could result in the conviction of the respondents. In', other words the want of cogent evidence justified the learned trial Court to acquit the accused and similarly the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in dismissing the revision petition.
3. It may be pointed out once again that the case is 10 years old and it will be too much to reopen or to restart the same once again from the initial stage. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. confers inherent powers on the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. In the present case no injustice has been done and there has been no abuse process of any Court which need be prevented through interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
S. A./M-18/L Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer