Since Criminal Revision No.13 of 1985 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.80-M of 1985. Arise from the same case, so, I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.
2. The facts leading to these matters briefly are that Muhammad Shafiq (petitioner in Criminal Revision No.183 of 1985, hereinafter referred as `the petitioner') filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell a shop against Mst. Khurshid Begum (Petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 80-M of 1985); hereinafter referred as `the respondent') on the basis of sale-deed dated 13-8-1972 allegedly executed by her in his favour. The respondent also filed a suit for the cancellation of the alleged agreement to sell on the basis whereof the petitioner had filed a suit for Specific Performance against her. The suits were consolidated, the issues were framed and the parties led evidence. Mr. Ahmadyar Lali, the learned Civil Judge, dismissed the suit of. The petitioner and decreed the suit of the respondent on 6-11-1976. On 30-11-1976, the respondent filed application before the learned Civil Judge for action on the charge of forgery and using a forged document in judicial proceedings against the petitioner. This application was heard by Malik Khadim Hussain, the successor Civil Judge, who on 2-4-1988 directed that a complaint under section 468/471, P.P.C.
May be fled against the petitioner, Dr. Muhammad Rafiq, Abdul Hameed Kiyani, Riaz Masih (hereinafter referred as `respondents Nos.1 to 3') and 2 others. The complaint was entrusted to Magistrate Section 30, Toba Tek Singh. He framed the charge under section 468/471, P.P.C. Against the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
3. The prosecution examined Malik Khadim Hussain, Civil Judge as P.W.1 and tendered copy of the judgment of Mr. Ahmadyar Lali and certified copy of the order of Malik Khadim Hussain, Civil Judge on 2-4-1988 and closed the evidence. No other witness was produced.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 denied the allegations against them. Muhammad Shafiq, however, admitted to have filed suit for Specific Performance of the Contract against the respondents on the basis of the disputed agreement to sell. He denied that the agreement was forged or that he used it as genuine, knowing the same to be forged. Dr. Muhammad Rafiq tendered documents Exhs. D.A. To D.F. In his defence. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and convicted the petitioner under section 471, P.P.C. And sentenced him to 3 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.5,000 in default thereof further R.I. For six months. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal and the respondents filed revision against the acquittal of the two co-accused before the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, who while dismissing the revision against acquittal also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the conviction and sentence, hence this Criminal Revision No.13 of 1985 riled by the petitioner and Criminal Miscellaneous No.80-M of 1985 under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Filed by the respondents against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge passed in revision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction of the petitioner is mainly based on the judgment of Civil Judge passed in the civil suit, which was not relevant in a criminal case. The learned counsel for the State has not only supported the conviction of the petitioner but has also argued that respondents Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted without any legal and factual justification.
6. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that only Malik Khadim Hussain, Civil Judge (P.W.1) has appeared for the prosecution. He had not decided the suit in which the alleged forged document was produced and used. Mr. Ahmadyar Lali, Civil Judge, who had tried the suit and had delivered the judgment was not examined. There is no independent evidence of the commission of forgery by the petitioner. The judgment of the Civil Judge given in the civil suit was/is not relevant under the relevant provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, which may be reproduced advantageously:-- Article 55--- A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant.
Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof-- that any legal character which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation; that any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when such judgment, order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person; that any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had ceased or should cease: and that anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property.
Article 56-- Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Article 55 are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.
Article 57.--- Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Articles 54, 55 and 56 are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Order."
It is, thus, very much obvious that judgment passed by the Civil Court was not relevant. This being the position, there is no option but to accept this revision and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The connected revision automatically fails. Order accordingly.