' Lal Hussain petitioner, has submitted this application for cancellation of to Muhammad Akbar as well as Nazar Hussain by order, dated 19-3-1994 by an Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi.
Application to the extent of Nazar Hussain was dismissed by order, dated 27-9-1994.
2. A case under section 420/468/471/406/34, P.P.C. Was registered against the respondents and their co-accused vide F.I.R. No, 211, dated 13-11-1992, Police Station Jatli, District Rawalpindi. The allegation in the F.I.R. Is that respondent Muhammad Akbar alongwith Muhammad Ilyas came to the complainant and stated that they are Motor Dealers at Chakwal and that they were running a show-room called "Israr Show-Room" for the sale/purchase of cars. The complainant handed over two cars bearing CH 3803 and CH. 3733 to the accused who after some time gave a cheque for a sum of Rs,2,50,000 which was dishonored by Habib Bank Ltd., Chakwal on the ground that the accused had no account there. The accused/respondents thereafter disappeared and later, the police fecovered both the cars from different persons and it transpired that the accused had sold away the said cars with the help of forged transfer letters and other papers.
3. Muhammad Akbar and Nazar Hussain respondents were allowed bail by an Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that prima facie the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and their case was that of further inquiry.
4. Aggrieved of the said order, the complainant submitted this application.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Muhammad Akbar is a habitual offender and is involved in a number of similar cases; that the so-called receipt whereby the complainant is shown to have received Rs,40,000 was found to be a forged one and signatures of Lal Hussain and others have been determined to be not genuine; that Israr in whose name the so- called "Israr Motors" is being operated is son of Muhammad Akbar; that his co-accused Muhammad Ilyas is still absconding and that this was not at all a case of civil nature and the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard is wholly misconceived. His contention is that the bail has been allowed to the accused/respondents in disregard of the material on record.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the complainant himself gave transfer 'letters of the said cars which were duly sold by the respondents and only some amount was outstanding to be paid which would make it a case of civil nature.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The Investigating Officer has also stated that respondent Muhammad Akbar is involved in three other cases, two of which are under section 420/406, P.P.C. Which stands registered at Police Station, Kohistani, District Mianwali vide F.I.R. Nos.29/93 and 88/94. The receipt of sale of cars produced by Muhammad Akbar shows that he had paid Rs,40,000 to him and the rest were to be paid in two installments on 1-5-1992 and 25-5-1992. This receipt has been found to be forged one.
9. Admittedly, the cars were sold to a third party and the police has! A recovered the same and it has also been found that these were sold on transfer, "letters which were not issued by the original owner. The complainant/owner of the cars had to pay Rs,65,000 to one purchaser and Rs,50,000 to the second for obtaining the aforesaid cars on Superdari, meaning thereby that he had to virtually re-purchase his own cars which were never sold by him. Respondent Muhammad Akbar defrauded the complainant. He is also involved in cases of similar nature and appears to be a person of fraudulent and shady character. The Investigating Officer has also pointed out that his person would be needed in order to ascertain his involvement in similar other case. The case in hand is not, at all, a case of civil nature. This is, prima facie, a criminal case. Fraud is a serious offence and it is only a shade less serious than "Haraarbah". In "Haraarbah" people are deprived of their property through force but in fraud, the people are deprived of their property through deception, the end result in both the cases is the same. The respondent committed fraud and prima facie, there is evidence to connect him with the commission of offence under section 420/468/471/109/34, P.P.C.
In this view of the matter, he deserves no concession and as such to him by order, dated 19-3-1994 by learned Additional Sessions Judge is cancelled.
Bail cancelled.