ORDER SHEET

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

Constitution Petition No.D-1096/2018

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

                            

                             Present

                                 Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Mahar 

                            Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito.

 

Petitioner:                Ghulam Abbas Sadhayo son of Ghulam Mustafa Sadhayo. R/O Girls College Mohalla Dastagir Colony Jacobabad.

                                Mr. A.R Farooque Pirzada advocate for petitioner.

Respondents.                Mr. Ubedullah Abro, Special prosecutor NAB.

The State.                      Mr. Oshaque Ali Sangi, Assistant Attorney General.

 

Cr. Misc. Application No. D-484 of 2018.

 

Applicant.                 Mumtaz Ali son of Muhammad Nawab, Resident of House No. A/100. Block-19 Shanti Nagar, Karachi.

                                Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Dayo advocate for the applicant.

 

Respondent.             The State.

 

Date of hearing.        04-09-2018.

Date of Decision.       04-09-2018.

 

O R D E R.

 

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- The captioned petition and Cr. Misc: applications are directed against the order dated 15-05-2018, passed by the Accountability Court, Sukkur in a reference No. 06/2015 whereby an application u/s 59 R/W Article 78 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat 1984 filed by the petitioner/applicant was dismissed.

2.      Briefly, the facts are that the application was moved before the Court of National Accountability Bureau Sukkur for verification of the signature on the sale certificate/entry No.4 (b) pertaining to Deh Odahi, Tapa Thull, New Taluka Thul, District Jacobabad to the handwriting expert to ascertaining the handwriting/signature of the petitioner/applicant is genuine or bogus, after hearing the parties vide order dated 15-05-2018 both the applications were dismissed by learned trial Court.

3.                Notices were served upon respondents.

4.                It is inter-alia contended by Mr. A.R Farooque Pirzada learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner Ghulam Abbas Sadhayo neither signed a sale certificate nor issued any letter for its verification and he has denied the signature on the sale certificate. He further argued that this Court, while passing order in Cr. Misc. application No. D-38 and 67 of 2016, Mumtaz Ali Channa Vs the State observed that if the petitioner intend to move an application for sending handwriting and signature of the petitioner for opinion to a handwriting expert, the trial court may decide the same in accordance with law after giving the opportunity of hearing to the parties. Lastly, he submitted that since the application has been dismissed by the learned trial court, therefore, instant petition may be allowed.

4.                Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Dayo learned counsel for the applicant argued that entry No. 4(b) was never affected by the applicant nor verified by him. Lastly, he prayed for allowing of the application.   

5.                On the other hand, Mr. Ubedullah Abro, SPP NAB argued that the application has been filed by the petitioner/applicant at a belated stage when all the PWs have been examined and now the case is fixed for the announcement of judgment, therefore he prays for dismissal of petition/application.

6.                We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record. It is admitted fact that the evidence of all PWs has been recorded, the entire case has proceeded and now the case is fixed for pronouncement of judgment. The record reveals that neither the petitioner/applicant moved any application at the time of joining of inquiry/investigation nor at the time of recording the evidence of the PWs/investigation officer for verification of signature on the aforesaid disputed documents from the handwriting expert. The petitioner/applicant has moved the application to the learned trial Court for verification of the signature from handwriting expert at a belated stage, which is nothing but to prolong the matter. Apart from above, the Article 84 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 empower the Courts to make the comparison of the words or signatures so written over a disputed document to that of admitted writing or signatures. In view of the said article, the learned trial Court is also competent to compare the disputed signature of the petitioner/applicant with the admitted signature available on record.

7.                In view of the above, the above petition/application merits no consideration and are dismissed accordingly.

 

 

                                                                                               Judge

                                                        Judge

 

Nasim/P.A