1. ' This is an application for abashment of proceedings pending in the Court of Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M., Kashmore under section 420, P. P. C. On 13th July, 1978 Mohammad Hassan son of Fazal Ahmad had submitted an application to Chief Martial Law Administrator alleging that his father had purchased some land at Jacobabad from a person who has died leaving two sons behind.
2. Deed was completed through one Abdul Bari (present applicant) who acted as agent and who was paid Rs. 5,000 on account. Of his promise to remove the disputes relating to that land. It was further alleged that the said Abdul Bari forcibly occupied the said land and is appropriating the whole produce. The said application was forwarded in due course to Mukhtiarkar and Additional Commissioner, Kashmore who recorded the statement of Mohammad Hassan on 13th September, 1979, where Mohammad Hassan stated that on 20th April, 1963 his. Father paid Rs. 15,260 to Qamar Zaman and an agreement was executed between the parties and accused Abdul Bari had stood surety for that amount. It was also deposed by Mohammad Hassan that Abdul Bari took Rs. 5,300 from his father Fazal Mohammad and Karam Din on the promise that he will help them in purchasing land in Taluka Kashmore. Mohammad Hassan also stated that,Qamar Zaman died 10 years back and Abdul Bari was his attorney who had fraudulently taken away money from , his father and the land which was given to them is also in his possession. The agreement for sale of land dated 12th July; 1962 has been filed which shows that Karam Din and Fazal Ahmad (uncle and father of complainant Mohammad Hassan) had agreed to purchase land from Qamar Zaman for Rs. 22,260 and paid R. 10,000 as advance. The details of land are .Given in the said agreement.
3. ' Another agreement was later on executed by Qamar Zaman on 20th of April, 1963 and it was attested by IIIrd Class Magistrate whereby Shahzada Qamar Zaman agreed to give some other land to Karam Din and Fazal Ahmad in exchange for the land measuring 51.15 acres situated in village Kumbry, Taluka Kashmore, District Jacobadad as the land at village Kumbry had been cancelled for reason of double allotment and it was suggested that the next allotment of land to Shahzada Qamar Zaman would be in village Samo. 'In this agreement Rs: 15,260 was acknowledged' to have been received by Qamar Zaman. On the same agreement there is a' writing from applicant Abdul,Bari bearing the date 20th April, 1963 where Abdul Bari has under taken. The responsibility of the entire amount advanced by Fazal Ahmad and- Karam Din, to Qamar Zaman.
4. The respondent Mohammad Hassan and his counsel were called absent. Mr. A hmedullah Farooqui has argued that it was a matter of mere civil liability which is being enforced through the process of the Criminal Court after matter has become time barred, he states that hi client has only acted as a commission agent and that in any case the offence if any took place in 1963, 15 years before the complainant filed hi application before the Chief Martial Law Administrator. I find some justification for these assertions. The agreement of '20th April, 1963 which is simed by Abdul Bari appears to be accepting a civil liability fo the amount paid to Qamar Zaman and this agreement shows that the land in Tehsil Kubry was not available, and therefore, some other land was t. Be given to Fazal Ahmad and Karam Din. In any case the basic thing is that it is too late in the day to file a complaint in 1978 in respect of a liability which had arisen in April, 1963. There is no bar of limitation ii criminal cases but still a period of 15 years for filing a complaint is to unreasonable a period which could be explained on any reasonable basis. Moreover, original seller of the land Qamar Zaman having died betwee. 1963 and 1978, there would be an obvious prejudice caused to the accused in the matter of his defence as Qamar Zaman would have been a very competent witness in the case.
5. ' In the circumstances of this case, the continuation of this case would amount to harrassment and torture to the applicant and he would be prejudiced in his trial, and therefore, the same is hereby quashed.