By his judgment, dated 23-5-1968, the learned Sessions Judge, Multan, convicted Talib Hassain, Bashir, Taj Din and Sarfraz for offence under sections 304, Part 1/34, 324/34 and on two counts under section 323/34, P. P. C., for having caused the death of Nazir Hussain and injuries to Hamid, Boota and Shah Muhammad P. Ws. Each one of them has been awarded seven years' R. I. under section 304, Part I, one year's R. I. under section 324, and six months' R. I. for two counts under section 323, P. P. C. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Taj Din has, through jail, filed Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 1970. Bashir Ahmad and Talib Hussain also filed appeals through jail. As these two appeals were time-barred at the time of admission, therefore, they were treated as revisions (Nos. 1149 and 1150 of 1971). Criminal Revision No. 877 of 1968 has been filed by Hamid, the complainant, against acquittal for offence under section 302, P. P. C., and also for enhancement of sentences. It was not admitted to hearing and was directed to be heard with the other above- noted matters. Sarfraz convict has not filed any appeal or revision. On reading of the evidence, I examined his convictions and sentence in suo motu revision. All these matters are being disposed of together by this judgment.
The prosecution case, as disclosed in the statement of Hamid (P. W. 11), who is also the brother of Nazir Hussain deceased and is the first informant, is as follows The witness and his brother Nazir Hussain deceased lived in village Nawabpur since 1947. The deceased had two kothas and a khola at Chah Dhayanwala where, it is claimed, they had some land and used to tether their cattle at that place. About 6/7
2. While opposing confirmation of an interim bail already allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 10-5-1972, learned counsel for the complainant supported by the learned counsel for the State contends that the petitioner has included several other persons having formed themselves into a gang for resorting to regular modits operandi of forging powers of attorney and with a view to transfer properties belonging to other persons, and that in the course of investigation of the case police has been able to lay hands on some similar other documents which purported to be used as forged power of attorney with the same object.
3. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the petitioner contends that the signatures of the petitioner having been got compared by the Investigating Officer has not fetched a positive report from the Handwriting Expert. Despite having indicated . some points of similarity the Handwriting Expert has expressed 2 3 4 5 his inability to give a definite opinion owing to insufficiency of identifiable data.
4. In view of the above position I see no objection to the confirmation of the interim bail already granted to the petitioner.
I order accordingly.
5. The petitioner shall, however, continue to join the investigation as and when required, to do so. .
(1) 3 Cr. L J 187 (3) AIR 1958 Nag. 58
(1) PLD 1968 SC 349
(3) 1969 P Cr. L J 111
(5) 1970 SCMR 299
(7) 1970 P Cr. L J 642
1. (1960) 2 Q B 396
(3) PLD 1953 FC 93
2. (1724) I6 St. Tr. 695 (2) (1910) 6 Cr. App. R 19 *[Here in italics]
3. PLD 1952 Lah. 502
4. PLD 1953 FC 93
5. PLD 1953 FC 35 (2) 1901 A C 495
6. PLD 1964 SC 120
7. PLD 1965 SC M1 (2) 1969 P Cr. L J 138
(3) 1971 SCMR 326
8. PLD 1958 Lah. 742
9. From the examination of the record of the lower Court it appears that various applications have been made by deceased Muhammad Ramzan as well as present complainant Shah Muhammad for expeditious trial of the case but somehow
10. PLD 1967 SC 317
11. PLD 1965 SC 287 (2) PLD 1967 SC 317
(3) PLD 1963 Kar. 868
12. AIR 1934 Lah. 103
13. PLD 1969 Kar. 162
14. PLD 1970 SC 13
15. AIR 1952 Madh. Bha. 180 (2) AIR 1943 Cal. 564
16. PLD 1964 Lah. 386
18. 1971 SCMR 183 (2) AIR 1944 FC 1
(3) (1964) 2 All E R 401
19. PLD 1963 SC 109 (2) PLD 1966 SC 708
(3) PLD 1953 FC 35
20. PLD 1962 SC 502
21. 1969 P Cr. L J 1008
22. Moreover, the case in the trial Court is now at the last stages because only defence has to be examined. It would, therefore, not be proper to divest the trial Court of its right to appreciate and appraise the evidence. I would, however, add that whatever
23. PLD 1958 Dacca 1H 0