PLJ 2005 Lahore
1011
Present: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Brig. (R.) ANIS AKRAM--Petitioner
versus
A.S.P. DEFENCE and others--Respondents
W.P. No. 12379 of 2004, decided on 20.9.2004.
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—
----Art. 199--Writ petition filed for registration of
FIR--Signature of petitioner and one "I.A." on agreement to sell were
forged by respondents after adopting the technique of computer
scanning--Contention of--Respondents appeared before the Court and produced
original agreement to sell and General Power of Attorney which was admitted
document between the parties having their signature and thumb
impressions--Neither signatures nor thumb impressions of both documents were
superimposed--Specimen signature and thumb impressions were taken by High Court
in presence of parties and sent to the Director (Technical), FIA--The report
was positive--According to report of the handwriting expert, the
thumb-impressions marked on agreement are identical with specimen
thumb-impressions of petitioners on his sample paper and power of attorney on
the basis of ten characteristics points of identity dotted in one of his
specimen print--Same is the position of specimen thumb impressions of
"I.A."--Petition dismissed in circumstances.
[Pp. 1012
& 1013] A & B
Mian Javed Hafeez, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.G. Punjab
with Asif S.I. with record.
Mr. Jehnagir A. Jhojha, Advocate for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 20.9.2004.
Order
The requisite report from the Handwriting Expert, FIA, Islamabad has been
received. I have perused the same. Learned counsel for the parties as also the
learned Additional Advocate General have also gone through it.
2. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that in fact the signatures of Brig. (R) Anis Akram
and Iftikhar Ahmad, on agreement to sell (Mark-A) were forged by respondents
after adopting the technique of computer scanning. Further submits that another
report may be summoned from the same Handwriting Expert on this point.
3. On the other
hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the report
from the FIA Handwriting Expert, no further action is called for. He has placed
on record a copy of suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated
3.11.2003 which is titled as Sohail Afzal son of Muhammad Afzal vs. Iftikhar
Ahmad and Brig. (R) Anees Akram Baig son of Akram Baig. Further submits that in
order to defeat the claim of the respondents, the suit in question had been
filed with malafide intention.
4. The learned
Additional Advocate General submits that in view of the report of the
Handwriting Expert, no further action is called for and that the petitioner, if
so advised, can file a complaint or a civil suit.
5. I have heard
learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Advocate-General and
have also perused the report of Handwriting Expert and the other documents
placed on record.
6. In the instant
case, this petition was filed for registration of criminal case by Brig (R)
Anis Akram against Respondents Nos. 3 to 9 and it came up for hearing on
23.7.2004. It was mentioned in this petition that Respondents Nos. 3 to 9, in
connivance with each other, got a forged sale-deed registered about the property
situated in Defence Area, Lahore.
I had asked the learned Additional Advocate General to direct Respondents Nos.
1 and 2 to appear before this Court. The same came up for hearing on 27.7.2004
on which date the petitioner was again heard. According to the petitioner,
Power of Attorney was given to Respondent No. 3 on 17.12.2003 but the same was
cancelled on 1.6.2004, sale agreement between Respondent No. 3 and Mubashar
Ahmad etc. was prepared prior to 17.12.2003 and this fraud could easily be
traced out from the fact that paper in question of sale agreement was purchased
on 4.12.2003 and the Local Commission had completed his proceedings on
10.12.2003.
7. After hearing
learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General and
Humayun ASP Defence Circle,
Cantt., I had directed the ASP to bring respondents in this Court on 28.7.2004
alongwith the original agreement to sell. They had appeared before this Court
on the said date and original agreement to sell was produced by Respondent No.
3 which was placed on record as marked-A allegedly entered into between the
petitioner and Respondent No. 3 Respondent No. 3 also produced original
irrevocable General Power of Attorney, placed on record as Mark-B, which is an
admitted document in question between the parties having their signatures and
thumb impressions. I noted that neither any signatures nor any thumb
impressions of both the documents were superimposed. Thereafter specimen
signatures and thumb impressions of both i.e. Brig (R) Anees Ahmad and Iftikhar
Ahmad, were taken by this Court on white papers in presence of both the parties
and were sent to the Director (Technical), FIA, Islamabad alongwith Marks-A&B. Now the
requisite report has been received and the same has been perused by the parties
and myself. The report is positive in nature. According to the report of the
Handwriting Expert, the thumb impressions marked as Q-1 and Q-2 on the
agreement marked as
"A" are identical
with the specimen thumb
impressions of Brig(R) Anees Akram, on his sample paper and Power of Attorney
marked as S-1 and B on the basis of ten characteristics points of identity
dotted in one of his specimen print. Same is the position of specimen thumb
impressions of Iftikhar Ahmad on his sample paper and Power of Attorney. The
questioned marked as Q-5 and Q-6 on the agreement marked as "A" are
similar in characteristics with the corresponding specimen and admitted routine
signatures of Brig(R) Anees Akram, on his sample sheet and Power of Attorney
for comparison.
8. After having
heard learned counsel for the parties, the learned Law Officer and having gone
through the report of the Handwriting Expert, I am not inclined to interfere in
the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This petition, having no merit, is hereby
dismissed.
(R.A.) Petition dismissed.
