' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby it upheld the convictions and sentences of the petitioner on the charges under sections 419, 468 and 471, P.P.C.
2. On a complaint filed by Gohar Rehman, the petitioner was tried under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. By the learned Magistrate, Mansehra, who found him guilty of the offences charged and sentenced her under section 419, P.P.C. To one year R.I. With a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default two months' R.I.; under section 420, same sentence, under section 468, P.P.C. Three years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default three months' R.I.; under section 471, P.P.C. Three years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default three months' R.I. The petitioner was also ordered to pay Rs,6,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., to the complainant party or in default six months' S.I.
The petitioner filed appeal against the judgment of the trial Court, which was entrusted to an Additional Sessions Judge, Mansehra, who by judgment dated 10-8-1993 set aside the conviction under section 420, but upheld the convictions under the other aforementioned sections and also reduced the sentence under section 419, P.P.C. To six months' R.I. With a fine of Rs,200 or in default one month S.I., and under section 468, P.P.C. To one year R.I. And a fine of Rs,500 or in default one month S.I. And the same punishment under section 471, P.P.C. The compensation awarded under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., was, however, enhanced to Rs,10,000 out of which half was to be paid to the complainant party. The petitioner challenged this order in revision before the High Court. A learned Single Judge upheld the convictions and sentences of the petitioner. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
3. The case for the prosecution in nutshell is that land measuring 6 Canals, 11 Marla's comprising Khasra No,4650 was owned by Mst. Noor Jehan deceased, mother of the complainant. It was inherited by the complainant, his sister Mst. Sosan Jan and Muhammad Miskeen, the second husband of Mst. Noor Jehan deceased. The petitioner approached the Tehsildar for cancellation of the mutation by personating for Mst. Noor Jahan deceased. In order to achieve this fraudulent transaction, she got published a notice in Daily Nawa-i-Waqt dated 14-10-1986 that her name has been wrongly entered as Mst. Resham Jan in the Revenue Record, which should be corrected. An affidavit was also sworn before the Registration Authorities for incorporating her name as Moor Jehan instead of Resham Jan in her identity card. She also procured a forged national identity card with a view to getting the land in question.
4. The prosecution case rests on the testimony of eleven witnesses and documentary evidence consisting of affidavit, application for identity card, cutting of newspaper, etc. The petitioner in her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the forgery and took the plea that her real name was Resham Jan alias Noor Jehan daughter of Imam Din and claimed ownership of the land in question. On appraisal of evidence on record the learned trial Court recorded a finding that the petitioner personated as Noor Jehan, obtained a forged identity card and thereafter appeared before the Revenue Officer for usurping the property of the legal heirs of Mst. Noor Jehan deceased.
On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after re-evaluation of the evidence on record, concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court, but reduced the sentence as stated above, which were upheld by the High Court in revision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Badaruddin v. Ahmed Raza (PLD 1993 SC 399) and Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal (PLD 1984 SC 95) to contend that the question of validity of mutation is sub judice before the Revenue Authorities, therefore, till the question of title is cleared by the competent Court, criminal proceedings on the basis of the said mutation were not warranted. It was argued that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner ought to have been postponed till the conclusion of the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities on the question of validity of mutation. The authorities cited by the learned counsel are distinguishable on facts as well as law and are, therefore, not applicable to the present case. In Badaruddin's case (supra), it was held that ingredients of criminal offences such as under sections 420, 406, 467 and 468, P.P.C.
And other cognate offences are similar as would appear in most cases of breach of contract. No doubt in such cases both remedies on criminal as well as civil sides are available and can be pressed into service, but Civil Courts should be given preference and allowed to decide such disputed facts. Here the matter relates to criminal offences of forgery and personation whereas before the Revenue Court the question for consideration is whether the mutation sanctioned in favor of the complainant party was liable to be cancelled. In the case of Muhammad Azam (supra), the respondent therein was convicted under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. On appeal, he was acquitted by the Federal Shariat Court against which a petition for leave to appeal was filed in this Court, whereupon the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court as well as order of the Federal Shariat Court and remanded the case for trial afresh. The prosecutrix therein also filed a suit for jactitation of marriage before the Family Court. A question arose whether the Criminal Court should stay the proceedings and await the result of the contest on the issue of Nikah before the Family Court. The Shariat Appellate Bench answered the question in the affirmative, inter alia, holding at pages 153-54 of the report that the decision of the Superior Courts including the Supreme Court on the plea of Nikah will have effect on the same issue before a Family Court, therefore, the trial Judge after recording the evidence should await the decision of the Family Court on the issue, of valid marriage in accordance with law. Here the Revenue Court is not concerned with title of the property, therefore, its decision on the question of sanctioning of mutation in favor of one or the other part will have no bearing on these proceedings in which the offences of forgery and personation had already been accomplished before the commencement of proceedings before the Revenue Court. There was, therefore, no bar to the continuation of criminal proceedings and revenue proceedings side by side even if they end in varying results. The reason is obvious. In revenue proceedings the question of sanctioning of mutation in favor of the complainant party is under examination whereas the object of the criminal proceedings is to determine and enforce the criminal liability of an accused.
6. It has been held by all the three Courts below that the petitioner is A guilty of the charges of personation and forgery. These concurrent findings are not liable to be interfered with in the absence of any plausible ground. Leave is therefore refused