1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1975 has been filed seeking leave against the order, dated 5-12-2001 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application bearing No,2241-M of 2000 which was moved in I.C.A. No,:133 of 2000.
2. ' The relevant facts in the background are that Ch. Ali Muhammad respondent No,1 in the present petition filed a Writ Petition bearing No,12517 of 1997 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The grievance voiced by the said respondent in the writ petition related to the non-payment of salaries to him for the period he served as Deputy Director, Punjab Small Industries Corporation, Lahore. The respondents Nos. 2 to .5 being the Member of the Management Committee of the said Corporation were impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide judgment, dated 24-3-2001 which was challenged by the respondents through I.C.A. No,433 of 2000 and the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide judgment, dated 15-10-2001 dismissed the I.C.A. The grievance of Ch. Ali Muhammad, respondent No,1 was redressed but after dismissal of I.C.A. He being annoyed with respondents Nos.2 to 5 because of the treatment meted with him by them moved a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,2241-M of 2000 against the respondents considering the allegation of tampering with judicial record. The application in question was disposed of by a Division Bench on 5-12-2001 with the following order:-- ' "We have gone through the report of Additional Registrar-I of this Court, dated 16-12-2000. The contents of the report justify the lodging of a criminal case based on the contents of the report. The Registrar of this Court is directed to do the needful and submit a report."
3. ' The present petitioner namely Muhammad Yousuf was employed as a Clerk in the Lahore High Court and was posted in the Copying Branch at the relevant time. Ch. Ali Muhammad, respondent No,1 sought dismissal of I.C.A. Being barred by time on the ground that the order in the writ petition was passed on 24-3-2001 and on the same day applications were moved for obtaining certified copy of the order by the parties. Subsequently, respondent moved two more applications for issue of certified copies of the order on 31-3-2000 and 31-5-2000 respectively. The date of application on the certified copy of the order placed on the record of I.C.A. Was 24-3-2001 whereas the dates of delivery mentioned on it was 31-5-2001 and in between another copy was prepared and issued.
4. The contention of the respondent was that this was done at the instance of respondents Nos.2 to 4 with the connivance of the concerned Clerk of the Copying Branch to bring the I.C.A. Within time The matter was entrusted to an Additional Registrar-I of the Lahore High Court, Lahore for an enquiry and during the inquiry the petitioner stated before the Additional Registrar that certified copy on the basis of which the I.C.A. Was field was issued under his signature and, that the mistake in the date was clerical which was caused due to the rush of work and was not an intentional act.
5. The conclusion of the Additional Registrar-I in the inquiry was as under:- ' "The important factor i.e, date of completion of copy, from which it could be assessed whether the I.C.A. Was time-barred or not, did not find mention on the back of the certified copy against the relevant column. Had the office of DRR/ADRR taken note of this lacuna while entertaining the appeal, and had raised an objection to that effect in the objection sheet or asked for an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the blunder committed by Mr. Muhammad Yousaf, Counter Clerk would have come to notice at the initial stage and would have been taken care of."
6. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that mentioning of wrong dates in the certified copy would hardly be an act of negligence which would not constitute an offence, and even the Inquiry Officer has treated' it a blunder on the part of petitioner, therefore, the direction of the learned Judges of the High Court for registration of a criminal case would not be legal. The learned counsel has submitted that the order for registration of the case has been passed on the basis of a preliminary inquiry and no regular inquiry was conducted. He however, submitted that the petitioner due to this stigma has resigned from the service which was sufficient punishment in the given circumstances. The learned counsel who represented Ch. Ali Muhammad, respondent No,1 submitted that the petitioner has admitted his responsibility before the Additional Registrar in the inquiry, therefore, the order for registration of the case would not call for interference. Ch. Ali Muhammad, respondent No,1 present in person has stated that respondents Nos.2 to 5 who were responsible for causing the delay in the payment of the salaries to him while acting in bad faith in connivance with the petitioner made an attempt to make the time-barred I.C.A. Within time so that the order passed by learned Single Judge in the writ petition in his favour could be undone or at least its implementation could be delayed. However, the respondent No,1 stated that neither he was interested in causing damage to the petitioner nor the application in question for registration of the case was moved against him rather he wanted a suitable action against respondents Nos.2 to 5 who managed to frustrate his case.
7. We having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also Ch. Ali Muhammad, respondent No,1 in person at length and find that more than one application forms for obtaining certified copies were filed on behalf of respondents Nos.2 to 5 and the present petitioner while posted in the Copying Branch the certified copy in question under his signature. There is no allegation of committing any forgery or tampering with the judicial record. The allegation against the petitioner was that he issued the copy which contained different dates pertaining to the different applications moved on behalf of respondents No,2 to 5 for delivery of the certified copies of the order in question. It is notable that all these applications were available on record in original, therefore, explanation offered by the petitioner appears to be correct which could happen due to the negligence of the petitioner. It was also the responsibility of his superior in the. Copying Branch to check the correct dates before issue of copy The moving of more than one application for supply of certified copy of the order could not be objectionable, therefore, mistake committed by the petitioner would not fall within the ambit of a criminal act.
8. ' Be that as it may be without commenting upon the conduct of respondents Nos.2 to 5 as none of them is represented, we direct that in pursuance of the order impugned in the present petition, the petitioner shall not be proceeded against criminally and if necessary may be joined in the investigation as witness. This petition with the above observation is converted into appeal and disposed of accordingly.