1. ' TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, J.---The brief facts of the case of the prosecution as transpired in the F.I.R. No, 29 of 2006 lodged on 3-7-2006 under sections 460, 420, 468, 471, 109 of P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 are that Plot No,223, Sector 23, situated in Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi was allotted to S.M.Ahmer on 26-2-2002 and leased out in his favour on 22-11-1968, inter alia it is further recorded, that Faiz Muhammad Pathan, the Sub-Registrar registered Sub- Power-of-Attorney on the basis of unregistered forged power of attorney registered by Abdul Rashid Awan son of Aziz-ur-Rehman in favour of Muhammad Ilyas son of Muhammad Afzal.
2. Consequently Muhammad Zafar Baloch the then Sub-Registrar, T-Div. XV, Karachi registered Conveyance Deed vide registration No,356, dated 20-1-2098, executed by Muhammad Ilyas son of Muhammad Afzal in favour of Muhammad Anis son of Muhammad Amil, Averring further Nizamuddin Mallah Sub-Registrar T-Div. XV, Karachi, vide Registration No,3269 dated 7-9-2000, executed by Muhammad Anis son of Muhammad Amil, in favour of Najamuddin A fridi son of Sahebzada Muhammad Sharif subsequently Muhammad Ilyas, Sub-Registrar T-Div.-V Karachi registered power of attorney in favour of Ahmed Saeed Khan son of Sufi Abdul Samad Khan on the basis of forged leased documents, the identification of first owner was made by M. Asghar All Advocate. Averring further Ghulam Mustafa, Sub-Registrar T-Div, IV. Karachi registered Sub-Power in favour of National Bank of Pakistan executed by Ahmer Saeed Khan son of Sufi Abdul Samad Khan.
3. ' It is further averred that aforesaid transactions of property in question have been made on the basis of false and forged documents in connivance of the Sub-Registrar and above named private persons, which constitutes violation of section 32 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Sub- Registrar was not competent by virtue of this section to register Sub-Power of Attorney as the authenticity of Power of Attorney (as first document) was not in conformity with section 33 of the Registration Act.
4. ' The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has argued that the name of the applicant/accused does not appear in the F.I.R., from the F.I.R. It transpires that the applicant registered the sub-power of attorney dated 14-3-2000 on 16-4-2000 in respect of the above said Plot on the basis of lease deed in respect of the same property in favour of Muhammad Ahmed dated 22-11-1998 and allotment dated 26-2-1965. Inter alia the said executant, Ahmer Saeed Khan son of Soofi Abdul Samad Khan derived authority form Registered General Power of Attorney dated 20-3-2000 executed by Muhammad Ahmed son of S.M. Said. Per learned counsel the documents placed before him were registered documents, hence the applicant/accused was not obliged to verify the authenticity of the said first document, by virtue of section 135 of the Registration Rules, 1929, hence committed no offence in the nature of those enunciated in the complaint under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, P.P.C. r/w 5 of PoA Act of 1947.
5. ' Per learned counsel in terms of sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, the Registrar need only be satisfied to the presence of the person purporting to be the executant who has himself appeared before the Registrar he is only required to conduct limited enquiry viz. In accordance with section 34(3)(a) as to identity of the person who has executed the document and voluntariness of such on execution. Per learned counsel the requirements the applicant has observed all the mandatory requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Registration Rules, 1929 and the executant Ahmer Saeed Khan was identified by Asghar Ali Advocate in accordance with section 127 of the Registration Rules, 1929.
6. ' Per learned counsel dispute as to title vis-a-vis the original documents and allotment/lease deed in respect of and concerning the said Plot is pending adjudication in civil court and the F.I.R. Has been mala fidely filed after due deliberation upon rejection of plaint by the High Court of the complainant's civil suit. The suit pertains to the year, 2004 while the complaint has been filed on 2- 7-2006 with ulterior motives to drag the applicant/accused into the false case with the connivance of officials of Anti-Corruption Establishment as the name of the applicant/accused did not appear in the F.I.R. And were subsequently included in the challan.
7. ' Per learned counsel the applicant/accused being a Registrar is not bound to verify the authenticity of the first document, by virtue of section 135 of the Registration Rules 1925, as held by honourable apex Court in Civil Appeal 140-K of 1982, as follows:-- "Registration Officers not concerned with validity of documents. Registration Officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned with the validity of documents brought to them for registration, and that it would be wrong for them to refuse to register on any such grounds as the following e.g. That the executant was dealing with property not belonging to him, or that the instrument infringed the rights of third person not parties to the transaction, or that the transaction was fraudulent or opposed to public policy. These and similar matters are for decision, if necessary by competent Courts of Law and registering officers as such have nothing to do with them. If the document is presented in proper manner by a competent person at the proper office within the time allowed by law, and if the registering officer is satisfied that the alleged executant is the person he presents himself to be, and if such person admits execution, the registering officer is bound to register the document without regards to its possible effects".
8. ' That the name of the applicant accused has been placed in Column No, 2 of the Final Charge Sheet submitted in Special Case No,14 of 2009 before the Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh Karachi by the I.O. Which incidentally pertains to the same transaction regarding the same plot viz. Plot No,223, Sector 23, Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi.
9. ' Learned counsel has further argued that in the meeting of the Divisional Anti-Corruption Committee held under the Chairmanship of District Coordinating Officer on 21-8-2008 (Act II) other distinguished members, has recommended that the name of the present applicant Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Abbasi be placed in Column No,2 i.e, cited as prosecution witness. Similarly the ACE Directorate of the Anti-Corruption has recommended to the D.O. Anti-Corruption, that in accordance with the meeting held of the provincial committee on Anti-Corruption held on dated 26-8-2009, of ACC-I, under Chairmanship of Hon'ble Chief Secretary Sindh which concluded and recommended that the name of the applicant Ghulam Mustafa Abbasi be dropped and placed in Column No,2, which was incorporated in Column No,2 in Charge Sheet No,28 of 2009 dated 6-9- 2009 and accordingly the applicant/ accused should have been discharged under section 63, Cr.P.C. Rather than to face prosecution and keep the democle's sword hanging over his head.
10. ' The learned A.P.-G did not vehemently oppose the grant of this application in view of reports of (a)
11. ACC-II meeting held under the Chairmanship District Coordination Officer Karachi Chairman ACC- II and (b) Provincial Committee on Anti-Corruption of ACC-I, under Chairmanship of Chief Secretary Sindh which concluded and recommended that the name of the applicant Ghulam Mustafa Abbasi be dropped and closed the case and no material was available on record to justify implication of the applicant/accused in the said crime.
12. ' I have heard the learned counsel and A.P.-G. And gone through the record. The name of the applicant/accused does not appear in the F.I.R., but his name was included in the challan and the challan was accepted against all the accused persons including the dropped accused in pursuance of the order of Special Judge Anti-Corruption (P) Karachi and the Sub-Power of Attorney has been executed in favour of National Bank of Pakistan, this becomes the ultimate beneficiary of the said Sub-Power of Attorney and the later must have taken all reasonable steps to verify the title and veracity of the said Plot and the executant of the Sub-Power of Attorney. There has been considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R. And there is nothing on record to show that forgery or cheating has been. Committed by the applicant/accused. The applicant/accused has acted in accordance with the parameters of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Registration Rules, 1929, while registering the said Sub-Power of Attorney on the basis of registered Power of Attorney and the prosecution has even tentatively failed to establish any nexus between the applicant/accused with any party whereby the applicant/accused could be implicated in, the said offence of forgery, fraud and cheating. The prosecution has failed to establish linkage of payment of any illegal gratification to the applicant/accused.
13. ' The applicant/accused being a Sub-Registrar is not bound to verify the authencity of the first document in terms of Rule 135 of Registration Rules, 1929. For better understanding the responsibility of the Sub-Registrar the said Rule is reproduced hereunder:-- "Registering Officers not concerned with the validity of documents. Registering Officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned with the validity of documents brought to them for registration and at it would be wrong for them to register, on such grounds as the following e.g. That the executant dealing with property not belonging to him or that the instrument the rights of third persons not parties to the transactions or that the instrument infringed the rights of third persons not parties to the transactions, or that the transaction was fraudulent or opposed to public policy. These and similar matters are for decision of necessary, by Competent Courts of Law and Registering Officers as such have nothing to do with them. If the document is presented in a proper marked by a competent person at the proper office within the time allowed by law, and if the registering office is satisfied that the alleged executant is bound to register the document without regard to its possible effects."
14. ' The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Baqi Mehar v. Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner, Karachi and others in Civil Appeal No, 140K of 1992, reported in 1989 SCM R 570 while referring to the Rule 135 of the West Pakistan Registration Rules 1929 came to the conclusion that the as far as the allegation against the appellant about the illegal registration of a lease deed is concerned, the law is very clear on this subject and allowed the appeal and the impugned judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal and the order of the dismissal of the appellant by respondent No,1 was set aside.
15. ' The Bench of this Court headed by Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed in the ease of Zumnoon Khan Advocate v. Mr. Nisar Ahmed Siddiqui and others in C.P. No,714 of 1999 while referring to the section 35 of Registration Act, 1908 only casts a solemn obligation upon the registering officer to satisfy himself that the person appearing before him is genuine. He could not be required to state the reasons for his satisfaction. It was also held that if a person really wishes to play a fraud, preparing a bogus certificate of employment is not at all difficult and the Registrar can hardly have any means to verify the authenticity of such certificate.
16. ' In Maqbool Rehman's case reported in 2002 SCM R 1076, it has been held by the Hon'ble apex Court by a bench comprising of Rana Bhagwandas, Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ as under:-- "---S. 561 A---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court-Nature and scope.
17. In law, section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Does not confer inherent jurisdiction on the High Court. It merely assumes that there is something as "inherent jurisdiction" and then it preserves it to enable the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to an order under Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is true that ordinarily inherent powers of the Court should not be invoked because inherent powers are exercised in extraordinary cases in the interest of justice. Such powers do not extend to uncalled for and unwarranted interference with the procedure precribed by law, which must always be followed. Normally, High Court does not exercise its inherent jurisdiction unless there is gross miscarriage of justice and interference by the High Court seems to be necessary to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of Justice. Jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is neither alternative nor additional in its nature and is to be rarely invoked only to secure the ends of justice so as to seek redress of grievance for which no other procedure is available and that the provisions should not be used to obstruct or direct the ordinary course of criminal procedure. This kind of jurisdiction is extraordinary in nature and designed to do substantial justice.
18. It is neither akin to appellate jurisdiction nor to the revisional jurisdiction. The source of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is derived from its nature as a Court of law. What is inherent is a non- separable incident of a thing or an institution in which it inheres. Every Court, whether Civil or Criminal, must in the absence of express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure be deemed to possess in its very constitution all such powers as are necessary to do right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice. This concept of law is based on the principle "when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that, without which it cannot exist". The High Court has, in view of its general jurisdiction over all the Criminal Courts subordinate to it, inherent powers to give effect to any order of any such Court under the Code and to prevent the abuse of process of any such Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
19. "---Complainant had launched the prosecution without any legal or moral justification---High Court was not debarred to quash the proceedings under S.561 A, Cr.P.C. In cases where either the charge had been framed by the Trial Court or the accused were summoned by a Court of law--- Course of action adopted by the High Court was neither illegal nor arbitrary or opposed to the settled principles of law for dispensation of justice---High Court was under a duty to ensure that the process of law was not allowed to be misused and by passing the impugned order it had prevented the mischief and advanced the cause of justice---- ' Proceedings amounted to sheer abuse of process of law and the same had been rightly quashed---Leave to appeal was refused to complainant by Supreme Court accordingly. ---S. 561-A---Quashing of proceedings---Scope---Proceedings can be quashed even after framing of charge in the case----Not incumbent upon Court to record evidence in all cases, wherein accused are summoned---Question as to whether to allow the prosecution to continue or to nip in the bud depends on the facts of each case."
20. ' No departmental enquiry is pending against the accused for the financial misconduct in 30 years of his service, and even the reports of (a) ACC-II of the meeting held under the Chairmanship of District Coordination Officer Karachi, Chairman ACC-II and (b) Provincial Committee on Anti- Corruption of ACC-I, under Chairmanship of Chief Secretary Sindh concluded and recommended that the name of the applicant/accused be dropped and closed.
21. ' That the first document has to be seen only in accordance with sections 33, 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 which do not cast any duty upon a Sub-Registrar as to verify the authentication of the document but rather he has to satisfy himself as to the identity of the person who has executed the document in this case it was Ahmer Saeed Khan, who executed the sub-power of Attorney in favour of National Bank of Pakistan and the execution was witnessed by two persons and the executant was indentified by an advocate.
22. ' There is nothing available on record whereby it can be gauged that the applicant/accused has acted dishonestly and in contrary to law in discharging his duty. I am of the view that the prosecution was launched without considering the appropriate law and there is no probability of the applicant being convicted if given fair and equitable trial. The law has also been settled on the point that in exceptional cases proceedings could be buried by way of quashment even after the framing of charge for dispension of justice and prevention of mischief. It is my view that this case, being extraordinary in nature and to secure the ends of justice for ensuring process of law not to be misused, is a fit case for invoking the inherent powers of this Court, as provided under section 561- A, Cr.P.C. For the quashment of F.I.R. No,29 of 2006 at ACE Karachi and all subsequent proceedings against the applicant/accused which otherwise allowed to be continued, would tantamount to abuse of process of law and even miscarriage of justice.
23. ' It was for the aforesaid reasons that through my short order dated 26-8-2010 the criminal miscellaneous application was allowed and accordingly F.I.R. No,29 of 2006 at ACE Karachi and all subsequent proceedings against the applicant/accused were quashed and the pending applications were disposed of with no orders as to costs.