1981 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Arif, Head Watchman (P. W. 9) supported the version given by Muhammad Ibrahim, Inspector in the F. I. R. Ghulam Rasool, A. S. I. Police Station, Mughalpura, took into possession Issue Notes and indents vide memos Exh. P. D. and Exh. P. C. Asghar Ahmad, Store Distributor, General Stores, P. W. R., Lahore (P. W. 11) stated that Abdur Rehman appellant carne to him for the issue of Gate Pass after having obtained articles from Section `E'. He had authority letter Exh. P. Q. with him, which contained handwritten line. The witness stated that after examining the authority letter Exh. P. Q, and checking the articles, he issued Gate Pass to Abdur Rehman appellant and the said appellant put down his signatures at Exh. P. J/2. The witness stated that Abdur Rehman appellant took away the articles mentioned in Gate Pass Exh. P. J/1. Shaukat Ali, Confidential Stenographer, General Stores, Mughalpura, Lahore (P. W. 12) produced documents and attested memo Exh. P. R. Muhammad Ibrahim, Inspector (P. W. 13) supported the F. I. R. He joined the investigation and attested certain memos. Khan Bahadur A. S. I. Police Station, Mughalpura (P. W. 14) partly investigated the case and took into possession certain documents and prepared memo. Rana Ali Hassan, Inspector (P. W. 15) recorded formal F. I. R. Exh. P. S/l, on the receipt of written complaint Exh. P. S. Qamar Ahmad Bhatti, Handwriting Expert (P. W. 16) had examined the documents and gave opinion. Barkat Ali Sub-Inspector (P. W. 17) arrested Nabi Bakhsh co-accused. Khuda Bakhsh Sub-Inspector, Watch & Ward General Stores, Mughal pura, Lahore (P. W. 18) was on duty on 11thOctober 1968. Abdur Rehman appellant came to him with Gate Pass. He was in possession of the articles as given in the Gate Pass. The witness stated that he allowed Abdur Rehman appellant to pass through the gate along with the articles on the basis of the Gate Pass.

5. Abdur Rehman appellant was examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. He admitted that he was posted as Clerk in the office of D. S., P. W. R., Multan in October 1968. He further admitted that he was deputed by the D. S., P. W. R., Multan, to collect store articles from General Stores, P. W. R., Lahore and he had brought Nabi Bakhsh co-accused to Lahore, as helper. He also admitted that he was given authority letter Exh. P. Q. He denied the allegation that he added words "also arrange supply of all other items due to this office". He explained that the said words were added later on and when he was given letter Exh. P. Q., those words were not there. He admitted to have produced letter Exh. P. Q. in General Stores, P. W. R., Lahore. He further admitted that on the basis of letter Exh. P. Q. and indents Exh. P. B., Exh. P. B/1 to Exh. P. B/7, he received cane plastic from the General Stores, Mughal pura. He denied to have received articles mentioned in Issue Notes Exh, P. E., Exh. P. E/ I to Exh. P. E/24 and Exh. P. F., Exh. P. Fit to Exh. P. F/7. He did not admit that he had put down his signatures at Exh. P. G/2 in Despatch Register Section 'E' Exh. '. G. When asked if' he got prepared Gate Pass Exh P. H. on the basis of Issue Notes Exh. P. B., Exh. P. B/I, Exh. P. F., Exh. P. F/1 to Exh. P. F/7, he stated that he only entered cane plastic and cane bald and issued Issue Notes Exh. P. B. and Exh. P. B/

1. He, however, admitted his signatures at Exh. P. J/2 on the back of the carbon copy of Gate Pass Exh. P. J/1. According to him, he had signed the Gate Pass for taking out the care plastic and cane bald through Issue Notes Exh. P. B. and Exh. P. B/ 1, whereas the other things were not related to him. Faiz Muhammad appellant it his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C, admitted that he was posted as Assistant Jamadar in General Stores. Section E', Mughalpura. He denied the rest of the allegations and did not know as to why the case had been made out against him. Three witnesses were produced in defence. Ahmad Ali Khan, Stock Verifier, Loco Depot, Mughalpura, Lahore (D. W. 1) stated that Abdur Rehman appellant came to him in his office along with some articles, which he got issued from the store at 11-00 a. m. and remained there till 11-35 a. m. Some persons conveyed information that a case had been detected and on the receipt of said information. Abdur Rehman left his office. Muhammad Nawaz Klian. Head Clerk, Transportation, D. S. Office Railway, Multan (D. W. 2) stated that there was no complaint against Abdur Rehman appellant of any kind nor he was involved in any case. Dilawar Khan. U. D. C., D. S. Office, Multan (D. W. 3) stated that according to his knowledge, Abdur Rehman appellant was not involved in any case. Mukhtar Ahmad Khan was not produced by the prosecution. He was examined as a Court witness. He deposed that he was working as Assistant Transportation Officer. D. S. Office Railway, Multan, in 1968. 1fter seeing D. O. letter Exh. P. Q., the witness stated that the said :otter was issued from his office and he signed it but the words "also arrange supply of all other items due to this office" were not in his hand.

6. I had to state briefly the evidence furnished by the prosecution witnesses for the reason that their evidence was not discussed in detail by the learned Special Judge.

7. The case of Abdur Rehman appellant will be taken up first. He was posted as Clerk in the office of D. S., P. W. R, Multan in October 1968. Draft Exh. P. A, was prepared and on the basis of this draft, D. O. letter Exh. P. Q. was sent by Mukhtar Ahmad Khan, Assistant Transportation Officer. D. S. Office Railway, Multan (C. W. 1). Muhammad Ramzan, U. D. C., Transportation Branch Office, D. S. Railway, Multan (P. W. 1) stated that rough draft Exh. P. A. was prepared by the appellant. Mukhtar Ahmad Khan (C. W. 1) sent D. O. letter Exh. P. Q. for the supply of cane spilit. He stated in Court that the words "also arrange supply of all other items due to this office were not in his hand and those words had not been written even to his knowledge. From the draft Exh. P. A., D. O. letter Exh. P. Q. and the statement of D. W. 1, it stood proved that the words written in hand also arrange supply of all other items due to this office" were forged. Letter Exh. P. Q. was handed over to Abdur Rehman appellant for receiving tile cane spilit from 6encral Stores, P. W. R., Mughalpura, Lahore. In his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C, Abdur Rehman admitted that he was deputed by D. S. P. W. R. of Multan office to collect articles from General Stores. P. W. R., Lahore. He further admitted that Nabi Bakhsh co-accused (Store Cooly in D. S., P. W. R. Office Multan) accompanied him to Lahore as helper. He also admitted to have received authority letter Exh. P. Q. The case of Abdur Rehman appellant way that when he received letter Exh. P. Q., words "also arrange supply of all, other items due to this office" were not there nor those words were entered when he produced the letter Exh. P. Q. in the General Stores, P. W. R., Lahore. According to him, the said words were added afterwards. On the basis of these forged handwritten words, the appellant had received items mentioned in Issue Notes Exh. P. F., Exh. P. Fit to Exh. P. F/7, on 11thOctober 1968. The appellant denied the execution of Issue Notes Exh. P. F., Exh. P. F/1 to Exh. P. F/7. He further denied to have received desert spoons, table spoons, tea spoons cooking knives, table knives, cooking spoons, and oil stove on 11thOctober 1968, on the basis or Issue Notes Exh. P. F., Exh. P. F/1 to Exh. P. F/7. Qamar Ahmad Bhatti, Handwriting Expert (P. W. 16) stated that the left side of Issue Forms Exh. P. F., Exh. P. F/1 to Exh. P. F/7, meant for the indentors were in the handwriting of Abdur Rehman appellant. According to the opinion of the Expert, these forms had been filled in by Abdur Rehman appellant. No evidence was led by the appellant in rebuttal. His case was of simple denial. The items of these Issue Forms Exh. P. F., Exh. P. F/1 to Exh. P. F/7 had been duly made in Despatch Register Section `E', Exh. P. G. at Exh. P. G/1. Taj Din, Ward Keeper, Store Depot, P. W. R., Mughalpura (P. W. 6) stated that a Despatch Register Exh. P. G. was kept in C. T. Section and a person who used to bring Issue Notes in the office used to make entries in the Des patch Register and also put down his signatures under those entries. The witness stated that Abdur Rehman has put down his signatures Exh. P. G/2. Maula Bakhsh, D. S. K. P. General Stores, P. W. R. Mughalpura, Lahore (P. W. 5) stated that the entries in register Exh. P. G. at Exh. P. G/1, carried the signatures of the person who received the articles. Abdur Aziz, Depot Store Keeper, Central Transportation Section, Railway General Stores, P. W. R., Mughalpura, Lahore (P. W. 3) explained the procedure as to how the articles could be received from the General Stores. He stated that the issue Notes used to be received in the Central Transportation Section acid after due checking, a Gate Pass was prepared and if a representative of the receiving office was accompanying the goods, then the articles used to be handed over to him along with the Gate Pass. The goods used to be brought to the Central Transportation Section by the Ward Keeper or by the represen tative and he assisted in checking the stores in the Section. The goods used to be entered in the Despatch Register of the Central Transportation Section by the Ward. Keeper or his representative who accompanied the goods. The staff of Watch & Ward posted at the gate would then only allow the goods to be passed through the gate after checking the Gate Pass, etc. Ghulam Ali co-accused was posted as Ward Keeper. He had signed Issue Notes Exh. P. F., Exh. P. F/1 to Exh. P. F/7. Taj Din, Ward Keeper had signed Gate Pass Exh. P. H. which was prepared by a helper. In this Gate Pass Exh. P. H., all the items of Issue Notes Exh. P. F., Exh. P. F/1 to Exh. P. F/7. besides the cane plastic and the cane spilit, ready-reckoner and ink-pots had been mentioned. This Gate Pass was prepared from Book Exh. P. J., Exh. P. J/1, is the Gate Pass, the copy of which is Exh. P. H. Taj Din (P. W. 6) stated that the Issue Notes and the Gate Pass are given to the person whom the things are issued and the signatures of that person are obtained on the back of the Gate Pass. The witness further stated that signatures on Gate Pass Book Exh. P. J. at Exh. P. J/2, were put down by Abdur Rehman appellant in his presence. Handwriting Expert also stated that the signatures on Gate Pass Book Exh. P. J. at Exh. P. J/2, were in the hand of Abdur Rehman appellant. Abdur Rehman appellant also admitted that he had put down his signatures Exh. P. J/2, on the back of the carbon copy of Gate Pass Exh. P J/1. The learned counsel for Abdur Rehman appellant was confronted with the following evidence:- (a) That Abdur Rehman appellant had prepared draft Exh. P. A. of the D. O. letter Exh. P. Q. which did not contain the words "also arrange supply of all other items due to this office." (b) That Abdur Rehman appellant had taken D. O. letter Exh. P, Q. to receive the supply of the articles whereby he was only to receive cane spilit from the General Stores, P. W. R., Mughalpura and he must be aware of the fact that he had to receive only the cane spilit from the General Stores ; (c) That according to the Handwriting Expert, entries on the left side of the issue Notes Exh. P. F., Exh. P. F./1 to P. F./7 were in the Handwriting of the appellant ; (d) That the Despatch Register Exh. P. G. contained the signatures of the appellant at Exh. P. G./2 against entries at Exh. P. G./1, which were in respect of articles of Issue Notes Exh. P. F., Exh. P. F./1 to Exh. P. F./7; and (e) That the Gate pass Exh. P. J./1 containing the entries of the Issue Notes Exh. P. F., Exh. P. F./1 to Exh. P. F./7 besides other articles contained the signatures of the appellant and the appellant himself had admitted his signatures at Exh. P. J./2. The learned counsel for the appellant when confronted with the above mentioned evidence, had nothing to say and he requested for the reduction of sentence on account of inordinate delay in disposal of the case and also for the reason that misappropriation of a meagre amount had taken place. There was overwhelming evidence to show that Abdur Rehman appellant was guilty of forging Issue Notes Exh. P. F., Exh. P. F./1 to Exh. P. F./7. The approach of the learned Special Judge in this regard was not in accordance with the evidence brought. on the record of this case. In the last para of the judgment, the learned Special Judge observed that he could safely hold that either Issue Nos. Exh. P. F., Exh. P. F /1 to Exh. P. F./7 were forged by Abdur Rehman or if not forged by him, he knew that those were forged one and had used those forged Issue Notes as genuine knowing them to be forged. This observation was against the material brought on the record. The prosecution had succeeded in proving that the Issue Notes Exh. P. F., Exh. P. F./1 to Exh. P. F./7 were forged by Abdur Rehman appellant. . The case against Abdur Rehman appellant stood proved and he was rightly convicted in this case. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it requires reduction. The case had been registered in October, 1968, It remained pending before the learned Special Judge for nearly six years. Now a period of more than ten years has elapsed. The spoon and knives were not of much value. Taking these facts into consideration, I reduce the sentence of Abdur Rehman appellant to sentence of imprison ment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1000 or in default in payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. With this modification in sentence, his appeal is dismissed.

8. The case of Faiz Mohammad appellant was at different footing. He was convicted under section 411, P. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Mohammad Ibrahim, Mohammad Aril P. Ws., Ahmad Khan and Mohammad Ibrahim Watchmen apprehended Faiz Mohammad appellant near the General Stores while taking away desert spoons, table spoons, tea spoons table knives, oil stove, cooking knives and cooking spoons. On inquiry, he informed the P. Ws. that he had received those articles from Abdur Rehman appellant and was taking to the house of Ghulam Ali, Ward Keeper co accused. Faiz Mohammad appellant was posted as Assistant Jamadar, Railway General Stores, Mughalpura, Lahore, on the relevant day. There was no material on the record to show that Fait Mohammad appellant had dishonestly received or retained those articles knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be the stolen property. I am not inclined to draw presumption against him that he bad received those articles knowing them to be stolen for the reason that he was an Assistant Jamadar and when asked by his superiors to deliver certain goods to a particular B place, he was supposed to obey that order. The appellant might not be aware that the articles which he was carrying to the house of Ghulam Ali co-accused had been drawn from the Store on the basis of forged Issue Notes. To me, his possession appears to be innocent and for this reason, I accept his appeal and acquit him of the charges. He is on bail and is discharged of his bail bond. Order accordingly.