KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through this petition, petitioner Khursheed Ahmed has called in question two orders dated 30.09.2016, passed by IX-Additional Sessions Judge East, Karachi in Criminal Revision Applications Nos,45/2016 and 46/2016 re-Ubaid Ansari v. The State and others, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed both the criminal revision applications filed against two separate orders dated 25.07.2017, passed by the XIX-Judicial Magistrate Karachi East, who had dismissed two applications filed by the complainant Ubaid Ansari, praying for verification of the signatures of the parties available on the subject document i,e, sale agreement from the hand-writing expert and the second for summoning/calling the witnesses namely ascribe and the Notary Public, in Criminal Case No,383/2014 culminated from FIR No,834/2014 for offence under sections. 420, 468, 471, 506-B, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Shahrah-e-Faisal Karachi, East.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has mainly contended that the sale agreement, which is subject document of the criminal case, is in an issue before the Civil Court in civil suit, filed by the petitioner for specific performance of contract being Civil Suit No,522 of 2013 re-Khursheed Ahmed v. Obaid Ansari, pending trial before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, East Karachi; per him, the criminal proceedings in existence of civil proceedings cannot be proceeded simultaneously; that the trial Court itself is competent to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures; and, that the impugned orders, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, allowing revision applications, against the orders, declining the verification of the subject sale agreement through hand-writing expert and calling the ascribe and Notary Public, who attested the said agreement, are illegal. He, therefore, prays that both the impugned orders, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge may be set aside.
3. Learned APG has supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. None is present for the private respondent Ubaid Ansari to address the arguments on his behalf, although on the last date of hearing i,e, 22.02.2017, the advocate for the respondent, was present.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.G. for the State and have also gone through the material available on record.
6. There is no cavil to the legal proposition that the court itself can compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures under Article 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984), but it does not debar the court from sending the subject document containing disputed signatures for his expert opinion, to the hand-writing expert and such expert evidence is admissible in evidence under Article 59 of Order (10 of 1984), for which the proper mode is provided under the law for referring the disputed document to the hand-writing expert, who is to give his expert opinion, enabling the court to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
7.From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that the criminal case No,383 of 2014 re-State v.
Ubaid Ansari, involved in this case, is culminated from FIR,No,834/2014 for offences under sections 420, 468, 471, 506-B & 34, P.P.C., lodged by the respondent at Police Station Shahra-e-Faisal, with the allegations that subject sale agreement is a fake and forged document; while the petitioner's stance is that the said agreement, containing the genuine signatures of the parties, is a genuine one. Suffice it to say that in the wake of such two different stances counter to each other, under the peculiar circumstances of the case one in hand, the opinion of hand-writing expert regarding the signatures of the parties on the subject sale agreement is relevant, which, needless to say, is always rebuttable by over whelming evidence. Moreover, the petitioner, who himself derives his claim on the basis of the subject sale agreement, being beneficiary thereof, was obliged to get an expert opinion about the genuineness or otherwise of the signatures available on A the subject sale agreement instead of un-necessarily disputing such exercise by filing the instant petition and seeking adjournments in the trial court, causing un-necessary delay in conclusion of the proceedings in aforementioned suit before the trial court as is reflected from the report dated 04.03.2017, furnished by the trial court through the District Judge, Karachi-East under cover letter No,1367 dated 06.03.2017 in pursuance of the query of this Court, made vide order dated 22.02.2017.
The relevant paragraph of the said report reads as under:-- "The accused persons are attending this Court on each and every date of hearing; however their counsel has failed to produce the original agreement despite of repeated directions issued by this Court. Since 17.10.2016, the learned counsel for accused persons is being directed to produce the original agreement but he failed to comply with such directions rather he states that the matter is sub judiced before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh, hence the compliance of the order dated 30.09.2016 passed by Hon'ble IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East has not been complied with till date."
In case of Sohbat Ali v. Muhammad Alam (PLD 2012 SC (AJ&K) 1), it was observed that:-- "A perusal of Article leaves no doubt that when the Court has to form an opinion upon the identity of finger print impression, the opinions of the persons "experts in such fields" are relevant. The expert witness is one who has devoted time and study to a special branch of learning and thus is specially skilled on the points on which he is asked to state his opinion. His evidence on such points is admissible to enable the court to come to a satisfactory conclusion."
In case of Muhammad Kabiruddin v. Muhammad Muniruddin (1993 CLC 747), the learned Division Bench of this Court has observed that:-- "11. One of the scientific modes of proving a disputed signature is to refer it to a handwriting expert with admitted signature for his opinion. It was open to the appellant to apply for examination of disputed and admitted signatures to handwriting expert ...
12. No doubt the Court is competent to compare the disputed and admitted signatures to ascertain the genuineness of the disputed signature but such procedure is risky and has to be adopted with caution and sparingly. The mode provided under law for proving disputed signatures has not fully been adopted by the appellant, therefore, in these circumstances, it will not be a safe course for the Court to compare the signatures and give a finding on it."
8. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the criminal proceedings and civil proceedings cannot be proceeded simultaneously is also untenable, for, it is by now well settled that the criminal proceedings in presence of civil proceedings are not barred and the proceedings on both sides i,e, criminal and civil can go on simultaneously side by side. Reference can be made to the case of Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others (2006 SCM R 1192), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:-- "4. We have given our anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that dispute between the parties is of civil nature has no force in view of law laid down by this Court in Ahmad Saeed v. The State 1996 SCMR 186.
5. It is also settled law that criminal proceedings are not barred in presence of civil proceedings and that civil and criminal proceedings can be proceeded simultaneously".
9. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 30.09.2016, passed by the learned IX-Additional Sessions Judge Karachi East do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders, attracting exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by this Court and, thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Above are the reasons of short order announced by us on 10.03.2017, whereby petition was dismissed.
11. Needless to point out that the observations, made hereinabove, are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant petition and the same shall not influence the trial Court in any manner while deciding the case which shall be decided in the wake of evidence in accordance with law and merits.