This order would dispose of petition filed by Muhammad Afzal under section 561-A, Cr. P. C.. The facts leading to the disposal of the present petition are as follows : Muhammad Afzal petitioner purchased wagon No. RIE-4071 for Rs. 70,000 from respondent No. 1. An amount of Rs. 30,000 was paid in cash. The rest was to be paid by monthly instalments of Rs. 2,000.
An 'agreement -was duly executed between the parties. It was stipulated in the agreement deed that after the payment of the balance of Rs. 40,000, the 'vehicle would be transferred in the name of the petitioner. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner paid the balance of Rs. 40,000 in lump sum and got the vehicle transferred in his name by producing the letter of authority before the Registration Authority but the respondent got a false case registered maliciously under sections 406, 420 and 467, P. P. C. It has been further stated in the petition that the trial Court gave the vehicle on spurdari to the petitioner vide order dated 19th August, 1979. On the revision petition filed by respondent No. 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge handed over the disputed wagon to respondent No. 1 on spurdari. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had become owner of the disputed wagon and his name was duly entered in the registration book and the respondent got a false case registered against him. It was further urged that the petitioner was entitled to the spurdari.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent raised objection that the present petition was incompetent against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 12th June, 1980, which had been passed on the revision petition filed by the respondent. Reliance was placed on a case titled State v. Ch. Altaf Hussain and 2 others (PLJ 1978 Cr. C. (Lah.) 516).
As regards the merits of the case, it was submitted that an amount of Rs. 27,000 was due from the petitioner and the petitioner by forging documents got the vehicle transferred in his name and was guilty of offences under sections 406, 420 and 467, P. P. C. It was pointed out that case had been registered against the petitioner on his written application dated 6th May, 1980.
3. During the hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the receipt dated 31st December, 1977 with regard to the payment of balance of Rs. 40.000. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 denied the execution of the receipt, and stated that it was a forged receipt. He further contended that this receipt was neither produced before the Investigating Officer nor before the trial Court or the Additional Sessions Judge. When questioned as to why this receipt was not produced before the Investigating Officer, the petitioner stated that he was not afforded any opportunity by the Investigating Officer to produce the said receipt. During the hearing of the revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amin-ul-Haq stated that entries about the payment of instalments had been made on the back of the agreement deed, which was under the possession of Muhammad Afzal. On inquiry by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muhammad Afzal stated that the said document was destroyed: at the time of the registration of the vehicle in his favour. Respondent had not denied before the learned Additional Sessions Judge about the payment of the instalments. The agreement was executed on 29th December, 1977. The amount of Rs. 30,000 had been paid. The balance was to be paid by monthly instalments of Rs.
2,060 each. The petitioner's case is that balance of Rs. 40,000 was paid on 31st December, 1977. This assertion requires consideration. In case, the petitioner had the balance of Rs. 40,000, it would have been paid to respondent No. 1, on 29th December, 1977. The fact that the petitioner did not produce the original receipt before any competent authority is another circumstance against him. Zafar lqbal (M Z. Lqbal) was the original owner of the vehicle. Respondent had purchased the vehicle from him. Letter of authority purporting to have been written by M. Z. Iqbal was produced before the Registration Authority. It is admitted by both the parties that Zafar lqbal was out of country when the agreement deed was executed and he was still living abroad. It would be for the petitioner to explain as to how he received the letter of authority from Zafar lqbal. All the circumstances go against the petitioner. After having considered the merits of the case, I find no reasonable ground for disturbing the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. Amin-ul-Haq filed the revision petition against the order of the trial Court dated 19th August, 1979 whereby the disputed wagon was given on spurdari to Muhammad Afzal. The revision petition was accepted. Muhammad Afzal filed revision petition in this Court bearing Criminal Revision No. 589/80, which was dismissed by this Court on 21st June, 1980, as it was incompetent due to the provisions of section 439 (41 (b), Cr. P. C. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. In fact, the present petition is a revision petition under the garb of a petition filed under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had considered the merits of the case at length and accepted the revision petition. No illegality or irregularity was committed by him. The present petition merits dismissal even on legal ground.
5. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed.