ORDER CH. KHURSHID AHMAD, J.- Arguments were heard and record was also perused. When the order of rejection was announced, the learned counsel offered to withdraw the application. That was too late in the day. The application could not be allowed to be withdrawn after orders were announced.
2. Case FIR No. 215/93 was registered at PS Kotwali Faisalabad on the basis of an application made by Haji Kh air Muhammad s/o Nizam Din no Chak No. 248-GB Tehsil Gojra District T.T. Singh under sections 420/467/468.471 PPC. It was alleged by Haji Khair Muhammad in his application that a plot admeasuring 8 m arias 8 Sarsahi bearing No. 13/2/7 of square No. 45 situated in Chak No. 224 RB was purchased by him and his brother Fazal Muhammad under a registered sale deed. He used to come to Faisalabad of and on and visit the plot. A few days earlier when he went to the plot he saw bricks lying there. He felt alarmed and enquired around on which transpired that the plot belonging to him and his brother was fraudulently got transferred by Muhammad Sarwar Khan no Chak No. 518 GB Tehsil Sadar District T.T. Singh in his name in complicity with Muhammad Rafiq Property Dealer Raja Chowk Faisalabad and had thereafter fraudulently been sold to Muhammad Riaz son of Hashmat Ali and Muhammad Anwar s/o Abdul Ghani. Neither the complainant himself nor his brother Fazal Muhammad had sold the plot to any other person nor they had appointed any other person as their attorney and that Fazal Muhammad was abroad since 1991 and had not returned to Pakistan. Muhammad Sarwar Khan had forged the documents and had deprived them of their valuable property.
3. Muhammad Sarwar Khan applied for the grant of bail before arrest which was dismissed on 2.2.1994 by Additional Sessions Judge. He was sent to Judicial lock up. He was granted bail after arrest by Malik Hamid-ud-Din MS-30 Faisalabad on 17.2.1994. Application for cancellation of bail was moved by Haji Khair Muhammad complainant which was accepted and the petitioner was committed to judicial custody on 23.6.1994.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner acquired the property under a registered deed which was executed by Maqsood Ahmad s/o Rashid Ahmad Khan, the attorney of the complainant and his brother and that the petitioner had no knowledge of the power of attorney deed having been forged and that it was a case of civil nature and the complainant has got the case registered out of mala fides and that the question of fraud can only be determined by a civil court, after framing the issues and recording evidence. It has further been contended that the petitioner had purchased the property and had also produced the agreement to sell in his favour and that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused had committed the offence.
5. The petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that prima facie power of attorney deed, the copy of which had been produced by the petitioner, was a forged document. The name of the complainant was mentioned as Munir Ahmad which in no case could have been given by the complainant who was the owner of the property along with his brother and that Maqsood Ahmad, the alleged attorney, was neither traceable nor was found to be ever residing in William Quarters and that the respectable residents of the said locality were examined by the Investigating Officer in that behalf.
6. The allegations against the petitioner are that he forged the power of attorney, Maqsood Ahmad, was fictitious person and valuable security was forged and the petitioner acquired the property which rightfully belonged to the complainant and his brothers. The Annexure 'E' at page 12 of the petition also have interpolations and additions when compared to the certified copy of the said document. In line 3 of the certified copy square No. 45 does not appear before "Khatoni" whereas the same has been inserted in the uncertified photo copy. Name of Mauza in the said line is also wrong and on the back of the deed, the word "Lahore" has been added after "Gali No. 6 Faisalabad".
On enquiry, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that there was no relationship of the petitioner with Haji Khair Muhammad and his brother. The transfer of the plot in the name of the petitioner was effected through a registered gift deed and therefore this court shall not advert to the alleged sale agreement dated 25.5.1993. Maqsood Ahmad has not been traced. The alleged transfer in the same of the petitioner took place within a week of the Attorney Deed and it cannot be believed that the transaction took place directly in such circumstances unless the "Attorney" was' known to the petitioner earlier. The "Attorney Deed" appears to be forged one on tentative appraisal.
7. The circumstances clearly connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The offence under section 467 falls within the prohibitory clause and in the circumstances there is no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The same is rejected.