' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, "appeal/revision petition" has been filed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge Kotli dated 10-2-2012, through which a revision petition filed by the present petitioner/accused was dismissed and order of Magistrate Section 30, Cr.P.C. Kotli dated 27-7-2011 was upheld.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present matter and 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 he 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. Rafi-ullah Sultani Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that an order to initiate proceedings against the present petitioner/accused was made on 2-6-2007 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 court as complainant, but it was not done. The case was registered on 3-1- 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.
' PLD 1987 Quetta 94 PLD 1990 SC 83 1995 PCr.LJ 1838 2000 SCMR 1904 2007 PCr.LJ 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 PLD 1987 Quetta 94. 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 initiate 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 sects 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 PCr.LJ 613. It is an admitted fact as well that the respondent/complainant Shahnawaz who was a litigant of a civil suit between the parties, moved an application on 3-1-2008 to lodge F.I.R. Against the present petitioner and became a complainant in the said criminal case. This application was submitted after 7 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 PCr.LJ 1838.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, circumstances of the present case revealed that an order to initiate criminal proceedings against the present applicant/petitioner was passed by the Presiding Officer of a court, but First Information Report was lodged on complaint of an opponent litigant of a civil suit. The case was not registered by the concerned Presiding Officer of the court. The said F.I.R. Was lodged after 7 months and no explanation for the delay was mentioned. The investigating agency relied only on oath of a witness and submitted its report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. In the court. This all was done violating the settled principles and provisions of law. No person can be convicted in presence of the facts mentioned above. The orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge Kotli dated 10-2-2012 and by the Magistrate Section 30 dated 27-7-2011 are not sustainable, which are hereby set aside. The application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is accepted, proceedings of Case No,35 dated 6-3-2008 registered at Police Station City Kotli are quashed and the applicant/petitioner is hereby acquitted in circumstances.