1. ' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.-- The brief facts of the matter per F.I.R, are that a wrong entry was kept at S. No, 301 of Deh Mehran, Taluka and District Malir by the concerned Revenue Officials in respect of a plot of land, measuring 500 sq. Yds., which initially in the name of late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Later, it was transferred in the name of his legal heirs and subsequently, sold it out to accused Muhammad Boota in the year, 1991. It was alleged in the F.I.R, that the applicant registered a General Power of Attorney on 31-12-2005 given by Muhammad Boota to his son on the basis of a wrong and fraudulent record and expired NOC given by the Revenue Officials.
2. ' On the basis of the foregoing allegations against the applicant, learned counsel says that he is the concerned Sub- Registrar and his duties do not in any way involve verification of the title documents in question. He has referred to Rule 135 of the Registration Rules which makes this abundantly clear as well as the case of Abdul Baqi Mehar v. Inspector General of Registration (1989 SCM R 570) and Messrs Pak. Fertilizer Co. v. Government of Sindh (2005 CLD 61). Hence, per learned counsel, the applicant has been malafidely involved in the alleged crime in question which essentially pertains to manipulation of the revenue record.
3. ' Learned Addl. P.G. Has not opposed this Bail Application and further submits that as per section 34 of the Registration Act, the Registrar is only required to carry out perfunctory enquiry limited to the execution of documents brought before him for the purpose of registration and satisfy himself as to the indentify the persons who claim to have executed the documents as well as witnesses.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel as well as the applicant present in Court. I would agree with both of them that the function of the Registrar is not to verify the title of the concerned property but only confirm the indentification of the persons, who appear before him for the purpose of registration and also to the factum of registration i,e, whether they admit execution of the same.
5. Another additional duty would be to carry out a prima facie investigation as to the title of the property i,e, whether the person who is selling it actually owns the same. In the present case, apparently the applicant registered the document, which is a General Power of Attorney on the basis of the Revenue Record, which indeed displayed the co- accused Muhammad Boota as the owner of the property. Consequently, perhaps his name has been included in the F.I.R, due to some ulterior motive. Hence, the bail earlier granted to the applicant is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. Bail Application stands disposed of.