' SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment, dated 24-3-1985 of the Lahore High Court. It arises in the following circumstances.
2. On a complaint made by the Sub-Registrar, Lahore, the appellant alongwith respondent No,2 was challaned by the police in the Court of a Magistrate at Lahore to stand trial on charges under sections 419, 420 and 467,. Pakistan Penal Code, and section 82, Registration Act. The allegations against them were that they had forged a general power-of-attorney in favour of Ghulam Qadir, respondent No,2, on behalf of Mst. Haparwali, respondent No,3, and had it registered on 4-2-1975.
Subsequently, in pursuance of the said power-of-attorney respondent No,2 sold the land which had been allotted to respondent No,3 in favour of the appellant. The trial could not start as the allegedly forged power-of-attorney could not be produced in Court. After, the trial had remained pending for many years, the appellant and respondent No,2 moved an application under section 249-A, Criminal Procedure Code, for their acquittal. This application was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 4-3-1981 with the following observations: "As the disputed document is not before me, trial of the case cannot proceed further. Moreover, the dispute before the competent Civil Court is pending about the same subject-matter in which Mst.
Haparwali herself has admitted in her written statement that she did appoint Ghulam Qadir accused as her general attorney. Pesent complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. The case is ordered to be cancelled and the accused are acquitted under section 249- A, Criminal Procedure Code. Local police be informed accordingly."
3. Respondent No,1 who had initiated the proceedings before the Sub-Registrar filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, against the order of the learned Magistrate.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition with the following observations: "I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record. In the first instance it may be mentioned that the impugned orders were passed on 4-3-1981 whereas the present revision was filed on 12-10-1982, after more than 10 months which is lawfully time-barred.
Then the reasons advanced by the learned trial Magistrate are proper because the matter being sub judice before the Civil Court, under section 195, Criminal Procedure Code the Court itself. Was competent to lodge a complaint if ultimately it held that they were forged. Then in view of the written statement filed by Mst. Happarwali that she had appointed Ghulam Qadir as her lawful attorney the very basis of the present case stood washed off, therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders which are hereby upheld and this revision petition is dismissed in limine."
4. Respondent No,1 then filed an application under section 561-A, Criminal" Procedure Code, before the High Court. A learned Single Judge accepted the application, set aside the orders of the Courts below and directed the trial Magistrate to dispose of the case in accordance with law. From the order of the High Court the appellant has come in appeal before this Court.
5. It may be mentioned that respondent No,1 filed a civil suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Khairpur in the Province of Sindh challenging the legality of the sale. The suit Was decreed. The appeal of the appellant is now pending in the High Court and an order with regard to the maintenance of status quo has been passed.
6. From the order of the learned Single Judge it is clear that in setting aside the orders of the Courts below he was entirely influenced by the consideration that it were the accused persons who were responsible for the delay in the holding of the trial. He, however, failed to notice the grounds on which the Courts below had proceeded to acquit the appellant and the other accused persons. As noticed above the main allegation against the appellant and the other accused was that they had forged a power-of-attorney in favour of respondent No,2. It appears from the order of the learned Magistrate that he had made several efforts to procure that .Document but failed to do so. In the circumstances if the trial Magistrate decided to put an end to the trial after it had remained pending for six long years he could not be said to have committed such a gross illegality requiring interference by the High Court under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code. We would, therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.