Report of Handwriting Expert Obtained by High Court in a Writ Petition

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.