1. The applicant has filed this criminal miscellaneous application challenging the order dated 10-4- 2002 of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central) by which his Criminal Revision Application No,26 of 2001 was dismissed and the order dated 25-5-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Central Karachi dismissing applicant's application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. was maintained.
2. The facts of the matter are that the respondent No,1 has filed a private complaint in the Court of Ist Judicial Magistrate, Karachi Central under sections 419, 463, 465 and 468, P.P.C. against the applicant. The applicant and the respondent No,1 are both brothers and they seem to have some dispute with regard to some property. In the private complaint filed by the respondent No,1, his grievance was that the real name of the applicant was Makhdoom Ahmed which was mentioned in his N.I.C. dated 24-1-1979 but through cheating and forgery, he got another N.I.C. dated 23-10- 1997 issued with the name of Makhdoom Ahmed alias Zaheer Ahmed. It appears that the trial Court after holding the preliminary inquiry took the complaint on the file and issued process against the applicant. Applicant appeared before the trial Court and filed an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. in which he took objection that matter regarding issuance of the second N.I.C. to the applicant is sub judice in the Court of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Central by way of Civil Suit No,29 of 2000 filed by the respondent No,1 in which cancellation of the said N.I.C. is sought. He further took objection that the respondent No,1 has no locus standi to file the complaint. The trial Court after hearing the counsel of the parties passed the order dated 25-5-2001 by which it found that the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. of the applicant is premature and therefore, dismissed the same. Learned trial Court in its said order did not give any finding on the point of law argued before him that under section 31 of the National Database and Registration Ordinance, 2000 the complaint filed by the respondent No,1 was incompetent. The applicant filed revision application which came to be decided by the Court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Karachi Central vide his order dated 10-4-2002 by which the revision application was dismissed.
3. The revisional Court also did not examine the legal question about the maintainability of the complaint filed by the respondent No,1 and disposed of the same by observing that the matter required recording of evidence.
4. Mr. M. Niamat Ali Randhawa, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that both the Courts below have failed to examine the question of maintainability/ competency of the private complaint filed by the respondent No,1 and that such question being question of jurisdiction, it ought to have been decided. He further argued that the grievance of the respondent No,1 is that the applicant has obtained second N.I.C. through cheating and forgery and that the main purpose of his complaint is to have second N.I.C. of the applicant cancelled and applicant prosecuted. He has stated that respondent No,1 has already filed Suit No,29 of 2000 seeking cancellation of second N.I.C. He has further stated the issuance of N.I.C. is regulated by the provisions of National Database and Registration Ordinance, 2000 and its section 18 provides for cancelling, impounding or confiscation of cards which is issued through cheating or forgery and section 30 makes giving of false information, forgery and holding of more than one card an offence and section 31 deals with cognizance of offences and provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offence under the Ordinance except upon complaint in writing made by Authority or any gazette(' officer authorized by it in this behalf. He has relied upon the case of Haji Ilyas v.- The State 2002 M LD 1038; Muhammad Ali v. Muhammad Aslam 2002 M LD 726; Sanaullah Khan v. The State PLD 2001 Peshawar 89; Muhammad Idrees v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 593; Muhammad Ayub alias Ranjha v.
5. District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Multan 2001 PCr.LJ 1039; Malik Muhammad Ayub Awan v.
6. Akhtar Lodhi, S.H.O., Police Station Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi 2001 PCr.LJ 1196 and Muhammad Akram v. The State PLD 2001 Karachi 112.
7. Mr. Mehmood Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has opposed this application and stated that the matter before the trial Court be allowed to proceed on merit. He has relied upon the case of Manzoor Hussain Shah v. The State 1998 SCMR 265; Mst. Said Khan v. Munsif Khan PLD 1992 Peshawar 71 and Haji Ghulam Qadir v. Ghulam Rasool 1998 PCr.LJ. 1031. The counsel appearing for the State has supported the case of the respondent No, 1.
8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have gone through the record.
9. Sections 30 and 31 of the National Database and Registration Ordinance, are as follows:-- "30. Other offences and penalties.-- (1) Any person who---
(a) does not, without reasonable cause, apply for registration required under this Ordinance;
(b) conceals, or refuses to furnish, any information he ought to disclose or furnish;
(c) fails, without reasonable cause, to report to any Registration Officer any loss of a card within thirty days of such loss;
(d) refuses or fails to produce or surrender a card as required respectively under section 17 or section 18 of this Ordinance or the rules and regulations made thereunder;
(e) does not, without reasonable cause, apply for a National Identity Card within ninety days of his attaining the age of eighteen years; or
(f) knowingly contravenes any other provision of this Ordinance or the rules or regulations except regulations made under clause (d) of subsection (4) of section 5, shall, in addition to any other penalty to which he may be liable under any other law, be punishable with rigorous imprison-ment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine not exceeding fifty thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) Any person who---
(a) makes any statement or furnishes any information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false in any material particular or which he does not believe to be true; obliterates or changes any particulars written or printed on any card; forges any card or makes or has in his possession any document so closely resembling a card as to be calculated to deceive; allows any other person to have possession of a card for the custody of which he is responsible; holds more than one card on the same eligibility criteria; or who attests or verifies any statement or information made or furnished for the purpose of this Ordinance which he knows or has reason to believe to be false in any material particular or which he does not believe to be true, shall, in addition to any other penalty to which he may be liable under any other law, be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine not exceeding one hundred thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person acting pursuant to a request made by the Authority under section 22.
31. Cognizance of offences.---No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Ordinance except upon complaint in writing made by the Authority or any gazetted officer authorized by it in this behalf."
10. Respondent No,1 has filed private complaint under sections 419, 463, 465 and 468, P.P.C. the substance of which is that the applicant whose name was Makhdoom Ahmed through forgery and cheating obtained second N.I.C. with the name of Makhdoom Ahmad alias Zameer Ahmed in order to occupy shop. The complaint therefore is of forgery and cheating in respect of N.I.C. and offence seems to be covered by section 30 (2)(a), (c) and (e) of the Ordinance, so far the question of filing of complaint by the respondent No,1 is concerned, it is found that the same is not competently filed as under section 31 of the Ordinance the complaint for offence under the Ordinance has to be filed by authority or by a gazetted officer authorized by it in this behalf. There is wisdom in this provision, the card being property of the Federal Government, any wrong committed in respect of it is an offence against the State and Authority has been designated to file complaint for such offences, if at all the offence is made out. By order dated 24-7-2002 R & P was called. Respondent No,1 has filed suit for cancellation of second N.I.C. of the applicant in the said suit Registrar of N.I.C. has filed his reply in which it is stated that a revised N.I.C. dated 23-10-1997 was issued to the applicant after complying necessary formalities and is a correct card and it cannot be cancelled. Therefore, as per N.I.C.'s office own view, there is no illegality in issuing of revised N.I.C. to the applicant. There is therefore, no basis for the charge and no probability of the applicant being convicted of the alleged offence. For this added reason also the complaint is not maintainable.
11. Accordingly this criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and Private Complaint No,231 of 2001 pending in the Court 1st Judicial Magistrate, Karachi (Central) is quashed.