' This judgment shall also dispose of Cr.R. No,644 of 1988, both arising out of the judgment, dated 5- 5-1988, by which the learned District Magistrate/Magistrate 1st Class, Khushab, convicting Muhammad Nadir appellant under sections 468 and 471, sentenced him to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs, 15,000 or in default to further undergo six months' R.I. on each count and directed both the substantial sentences to run consecutively.
2. Mian Altaf Hussain complainant had made an application to the Superintendent of Police, Khushab, alleging therein that Plot No, 385, Block No,12, Joharabad, belonged to him while Plot No, 383 to his father Mian Muhammad and Plot No, 384 to his uncle Gul Muhammad. According to him Muhammad Nadir appellant fabricated two powers of attorney by producing some fictitious persons before the Sub-Registrar at Sargodha and on the basis of those forged documents, he sold out Plots Nos. 45, 46 and 185 in Block No,12, Joharabad, to one Muhammad Aslam after getting them exchanged with Plots Nos. 383, 384 and 385 situated in the same block. After ascertaining these facts, the police registered case F.I.R. No, 661, dated 28-3-1983, under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. against the appellant and Ansar Ahmad, Advocate from Sargodha, who had identified certain persons before the Sub-Registrar at the time of attestation of the powers of attorney. It appears that Ansar Ahmad, Advocate, during the course of investigation, instead of being arraigned as an accused alongwith the appellant, was cited as a prosecution witness and the challan, on the completion of the investigation, was submitted only against the appellant.
3. The appellant was tried by Mr. Shamim Jehangir, Illaqa Magistrate, Joharabad and was acquitted on 20-3-1986. Against this order Mian Altaf Hussain complainant filed a revision petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Khushab, who, vide his order, dated 20-4-1987, accepted the revision, set aside the order of acquittal and remanded the case to the trial Court for re- decision. Aggrieved by the remand order, the appellant filed quaslunent Petition No,128/0 of 1987, in the High Court, which was dismissed on 17-5-1987. The trial Court, after the remand, convicted the appellant under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C., vide order, dated 19-9-1987, and sentenced him to two years' R.I. He went up in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, while the complainant filed a revision against him and both of them were disposed of vide order, dated 4-11-1987. He again remanded the case for re-decision by the District Magistrate, Khushab at Joharabad. He re-%rote the judgment, dated 5-5-1988, giving rise to this appeal as also the revision.
4. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the signatures of the appellant on the charge-sheet were not obtained; that no specimen signatures of the appellant were taken for comparison with his alleged signatures on the questioned documents; that signatures of Altaf and Mian Khan P.Ws. were obtained by the Magistrate for comparison but the Magistrate was not produced at the trial; that even an objection was raised by the handwriting expert on 26-5-1983 and the papers were returned for obtaining full and better signatures but there is nothing on the record to show that the omission was supplied or mistake was rectified and the objection was specifically raised on 8-2- 1986 when the report dated 19-1-1984 was tendered in evidence; that Ansar Ahmad, Advocate, was first arraigned as an accused in the F.I.R. and he was the person who had executed power of attorney in favour of the appellant and later he was cited as an prosecution witness; and that the appellant was never present at the time of execution of the powers of attorney. Finally, it is urged that the parties, being intimately known to each other, the complainant had requested the appellant to get the allotment of the plots, which had been cancelled from their names, restored to them from the Housing Department by using his influence and then get the same sold and in this background he made some genuine efforts but the plots belonging to the complainant party still remain either their ownership or that of the House Department and they have suffered no loss and in these circumstances the appellant, who has suffered protracted trial, may be acquitted.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has tried to support the impugned judgment.
6. An official of the Office of the District Housing Officer, Khushab, is present with record.
Complainant is also present. The official with the help of record states that all the three plots in question remain in the occupation of the complainant and his relations and proceedings are going on for the conferment of ownership on them. The complainant affirms this position.
7. It means, the complainant party has suffered no loss by the alleged criminal act of the appellant which at the most remained confined only to an attempt. By this time he has undergone sufficient ordeal by protracted litigations spreading over many years. The possibility of his having taken some steps at the instance of the complainant party, persuant to some understanding reached by them, cannot be excluded, various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant also appear to be weighty, particularly when the specimen signatures of the appellant were not taken for comparison with his alleged signatures on the questioned document and complainant's specimen signatures were not considered decipherable enough by the expert for forming his opinion.
For various reasons stated above, the appeal is accepted, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted on benefit of doubt. As a result, the revision is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.