MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J.~Mohammad Sarwar, Mst. Ghulam Fatima, Rehmat Ullah and Malik Muhammad Tariq were granted bail before arrest by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore and so Crl.
Misc.No.4529-B/89 for cancellation has been filed.
2. Shaukat Ali, Sadiq Ali, Sh. Manzoor Ahmad and Mohammad Arif have applied for bail before arrest, their plea in this regard having been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Both the petitions are being disposed of by this order.
3. Shop N0.I6-A, Rang Mahal Market Scheme was allotted in lease hold rights by the Lahore Improvement Trust to Muhammad Ikram, Muhammad Yousaf, Ghulam Rasool and Abdul Karim.
Muhammad Ikram had half share and the other three had the other half. A general power of attorney was executed on 12.4.1984 by the above-mentioned Abdul Karim in favour of Liaqat Iqbal co- accused. Muhammad Arif(Petitioner No.4 in bail petition) amd Malik Muhammad Tariq (respondent No.4 in bail cancellation petition) are the atesting witnesses of this power of attorney while Shaukat Ali petitioner is the identifier of the executants. On the basis of this power of attorney sale-deed was executed by Liaqat Iqbal in favour of Shaukat Ali and Sadiq Ali petitioners on 5.5.1984. These two documents are alleged to be the result of deceit, fraud and forgery according to the allegations in the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has explained the situation with reference to the documents on the record. It is as follows:- Muhammad Yousaf, Ghulam Rasool and Abdul Karim transferred their lease-hold rights in favour of Muhammad Hussain vide document dated 16.3.1954. Muhammad Ikram transferred his half rights in the other half to Amir Ali on 6.3.1954. He in his trun transferred these rights to Sh, Nazir Ahmad and Sh. Manzoor Ahmad petitioner vide document dated 23.9.1961. Sh. Nazir Ahmad further transferred his rights in favour of Sh. Manzoor Ahmad on 22.2.1972. Thus Sh. Manzoor Ahmad became the holder of lease-hold rights of the half share of Muhammad Ikram, For the disposal of the present petitions we are not concerned with this share.
5. The lease-hold rights obtained by Muhammad Hussain, mentioned above, were transferred by his legal heirs to Shaukat Ali and Sadiq Ali as far back as 26.9.78 as per) documents on record.
Shaukat Ali and Sadiq Ali continued in enjoyment of their rights According to the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Muhammad Yousaf petitioner had admitted the death of Abdul Karim long way back i.e.20 years before. However, the entry about his death was made when the present trouble started.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents has contended that in view of the definition of forgery as contained in Section 463 PPC no offence was made out, even if it be admitted that Abdul Karim had died long way back and the power of attorney and on its basis the sale-deed were not the documents prepared in straightforward manner.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the documents on the record the argument is prima facie valid. As observed above the legal heirs of Muhammad Hussain had transferred their lease-hold rights to Shaukat Ali and Sadiq Ali on 26.9.78. Thus the preparation of the general power of attorney on his behalf in the year s1984 and then the preparation of the sale- deed in favour of Shaukat Ali and Sadiq Ali was not called for. No rights were left in the legal heirs of Abdul Karim which further required to be obtained by Shaukat Ali and Sadiq Ali, they .Already having obtained rights vide deed dated 26.9.78. It seems that perhaps LDA wanted some documents on behalf of the original allottees of lease-hold rights to validate and transfer in favour of Sadiq and Shaukat in their anxiety some documents were prepared. But leaving this aspect aside it has further been brought to the notice of the Court that with respect to the title of the property a civil suit is pending. There the documents now being made the basis of the prosecution are directly in dispute and so only the said Court or higher forum in appeal or revision, if there would be any in future, would be authorised to launch or take up prosecution of the offenders.
Direct case cannot be taken in hand by the police in view of the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C.
Hence the bail before arrest already granted are confirmed while the petition for cancellation stands dismissed.