2005 Y L R 3186

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Jehangir Arshad, J

AYYAZ MEHMOOD KHAN KHAKWANI---Petitioner

Versus

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF MOHANDRA, and others---Respondents

Criminal Revision No.111 of 2005, decided on 4 th July, 2005.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss.420/468/471---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.195(1)(c), 476 & 439---Revision---

Sessions Court refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondents for submitting
forged Wakalatnama in the Court in a bail application---Petitioner had assailed the said order---
Respondent had in unequivocal terms admitted to have appointed the lawyer as his attorney and also
owned his signatures on the Wakalatnama---No wrongful loss to the petitioner and no wrongful
advantage to the lawyer had been caused by the said Power of Attorney---Even in criminal matters
a Lawyer could appear on the oral instructions of a party---Even otherwise, proceedings in terms of
Ss.195(l)(c) & 476, Cr.P.C. as well as under Ss. 420, 468 & 471, P.P.C. could be initiated only at
the instance of concerned Court which was the Additional Sessions Judge in the present case, and
it was for him to decide whether or not to launch prosecution against the respondents and lawyer,
High Court, therefore, could not compel him to initiate such proceedings---Impugned order did not
suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect ---Revision petition was dismissed in
limine accordingly.
Muhammad Shafi v. D.S.P. PLD 1992 Lah. 178 and Muhammad Suleman and others v.
Abdul Razzaq and others PLD 2005 Lah. 386 ref.

Sayyed Muhammad Ibrahim Shah Bukhari for Petitioner.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---Through this criminal revision the petitioner

seeks annulment of the order dated 14-5-2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Rahim Yar Khan, whereby petitioner's prayer for initiation of criminal proceedings against
respondents Nos.1 and 2 for submitting forged Wakalatnama on 20-4-2005 on behalf of
respondent No.2 in bail application in case F.I.R. No.351 of 2004 under sections 406, 419,
420, 468 and 471, P.P.C., was disallowed.

2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order was mainly
persuaded by the fact that as the respondent No.2 had admitted to have appointed the
respondent No.1 as his counsel and had also owned the signatures on the Wakalatnama
submitted by respondent No. 1, hence, in the absence of any wrongful loss caused to the
petitioner or enjoying wrongful gain by the respondent due to submission of said all eged
forged Wakalatnama, no proceedings could be initiated mainly on the whim of the petitioner.

3. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed that
without determination of. factual controversy as to whether or not the said Wakalatnama
contained genuine signatures of respondent No.2, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was
not competent to dismiss petitioner's application in a summary manner.

4. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel and perused the relevant record.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing petitioner's application has
correctly held that when the execution of document i.e. Wakalatnama by respondent No.2 on
behalf of respondent No.1 is admitted, no question of commission of offence arises at all,
especially when the petitioner has not pointed out any wrongful loss caused to him by the
said power of attorney or for that matter respondent No.2 obtained any wrongful gain in
consequence thereof. Even in criminal matters, a lawyer can appear on the oral instructions
of a party. Since the respondent No.2 in unequivocal terms admitted to have appointed

respondent No.1 as his attorney and also owned his signatures on the said Wakalatnama
resulting neither in any wrongful loss to the petitioner or conferring any wrongful advantage
to respondent No.2, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly turned down the
request of the petitioner. Even otherwise, since proceedings in terms of sections 195(1)(c)
and 476, Cr.P.C. as well as under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. could be initiated only at
the instance of concerned Court which was the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the
present case, and it was for the said Court to decide whether or not to launch prosecution
against the respondent, this Court cannot compel the said learned Additional Sessions Judge
to initiate proceedings against the respondents. Reliance is placed on a Full Bench judgment
of this Court "Muhammad Shafi v. D.S.P." PLD 1992 Lahore 178 and "Muhammad Suleman
and others v. Abdul Razzaq and others" PLD 2005 Lahore 386. Hence, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge committed no illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned
order.

6. Finally it may not be out of place to mention here that offences under sections 468 and
471, P.P.C. being non-cognizable and if the Court before whom the alleged offences were
committed did not feel it proper to prosecute the respondents, this Court cannot compel the
said Court to file complaint against the respondents. I am therefore, satisfied that the order of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing petitioner's application neither suffer from
any illegality nor jurisdictional defect. This petition as such is dismissed in limine.

N.H.Q./A-519/L Petition dismissed.