ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Munawar Ali petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 25-3-1984, whereby he dismissed his appeal in a case under sections 471 and 468, P.P.C.
2. The facts leading to the present petition are, briefly, that the petitioner moved an application under section 11 of the Punjab Wakf Properties Ordinance, 1979, before the District and Sessions Judge, Lahore. It was sent by him for disposal to Mr. Muhammad Sarfraz Cheema, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lahore. During the proceedings in the aforesaid application the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge felt that forgery had been committed in respect of the vale-deed accompanying the application. He, therefore, summoned the original sale-deed as well as the relevant register from the office of the Sub-- Registrar, Lahore, and after satisfying himself, issued a show-cause notice under section 476, Cr.P.C. To the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for the aforementioned offence.
3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 21-3-1984. Thereafter, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge considered the matter and convicted him under section 468/471, P.P.C. And sentenced him to 2 years' R.I.
Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
Not feeling satisfied, Munawar Ali petitioner has filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge did not have the jurisdiction to decide the matter as an application under section 11 of the Punjab Wakf Properties Ordinance, 1979, can be heard by the District and Sessions Judge alone. He, however, gave up this plea when it was pointed out to him that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, had proceeded under section 476, Cr. P. C.
The counsel then argued that although the learned trial Court had convicted the petitioner on the basis of his confession but the petitioner had not, in fact, confessed his guilt.
5. We find no force in this contention because after perusing the reply submitted by the petitioner to the notice under section 476, Cr. P. C . , no doubt is left about his having committed the aforementioned offence. We, therefore, do not consider it a fit case for interference by way of granting leave. The petition is consequently dismissed.