MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J. --- This "appeal/revision petition" has been filed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge Kotli dated 10.02.2012, through which a revision petition filed by the present petitioner/accused was dismissed and order of Magistrate Section 30, Cr.P.C., Kotli dated 27.07.2011 was upheld.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present matter are that during pendency of a civil suit, the present petitioner submitted an attorney on behalf of one Maqbool Hussain before the Court. The said Court ordered to initiate proceedings against the present petitioner for preparing fictitious and fraudulent document. The criminal case was registered against the present petitioner Abdul Jabbar on application of the respondent/complainant Shahnawaz. Report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.
Regarding the said criminal case was submitted before Magistrate Section 30, Cr.P.C. Kotli. The present petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. In the said Court, which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. A revision petition was preferred by the present petitioner before Sessions Judge Kotli, which was made over to Additional Sessions Judge Kotli for disposal under law. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition maintaining the order of subordinate Magistrate. Hence, the present "appeal/revision petition".
3. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Rafiullah Sultani Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that an order to initiate proceedings against the present petitioner/accused was made on 02.06.2007 by the presiding officer of a Court. It was requirement of law that the criminal case should have been registered mentioning the said presiding officer of the Courts as complainant, but it was not done. The case was registered in 03.01.2008 on application of the respondent Shahnawaz. No explanation of the delay was brought on record as well. The learned counsel conceded at bar that no appeal or revision lies against the order of Additional Sessions Judge Kotli passed in a revision petition. The learned counsel requested to treat the present "appeal/revision petition" as an application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further requested to accept the version of the present petitioner and to acquit the accused under Section 249-A of Cr.P.C. And referred the following precedents in support of his arguments:- PLJ 1987 Cr.C. (Qta) 406 PLD 1990 SC 83 1995 P.Cr.L.J. 1838 2000 SCM R 1904 2007 P.Cr.L.J. 613
4. While controverting the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mallick Muhammad Zarahat Khan, Advocate the learned counsel for the private respondent/complainant contended that both the subordinate Courts have recorded concurrent findings. The present petition is not maintainable because no appeal or revision lies against the order of Additional Sessions Judge passed in a revision petition. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the present "appeal/revision petition".
The learned Additional Advocate General owned the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and requested to dismiss the present "appeal/revision petition".
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record and the precedents referred minutely. It is a settled principle of law that any appeal or revision can be treated as an application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. To meet the ends of justice. This principle has been laid down in the precedent PLJ 1987 Cr.C. (Qa) 406. The circumstances of the present case require the same treatment. It is also a settled principle of law that an appeal or revision does not lie against the order. Of Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge passed in a revision. So, this "appeal/revision petition" is converted into an application under Section 561-A of Cr.P.C.
6. It is an admitted fact that an order to intimate criminal proceedings against the present petitioner/accused was passed by the presiding officer of a Civil Court. Section 195(1) narrates that prosecution of offences relating to documents can be initiated by the concerned Court only. A litigant in a civil matter is prevented under the said Section from lodging a criminal complaint regarding the alleged manipulation of documents, which are subject-matter of said proceedings.
Meaning thereby that such a complaint could only be lodged by the concerned Court only after it would come to the conclusion that the document in question was forged. This principle of law has been laid down in the precedent 2007 P.Cr.LJ. 613. It is an admitted fact as well that at the respondent/complainant Shahnawaz who was a litigant of a civil suit between the parties, moved an application on 03.01.2008 to lodge F.I.R. Against the present petitioner and became a complainant in the said criminal case. This application was submitted after 07 months approximately and no explanation has been mentioned regarding the delay as well.
7. The record reveals as well that investigating agency relied only on an oath made by a prosecution witness and submitted its report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is a settled principle of law that oath proceedings and procedure of swearing of Holy Quran is not applicable in criminal cases. This principle has been laid down in the precedents PLD 1990 SC 83 and 1995 P.Cr.LJ. 1838.
Impugned /Petition allowed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.