PCRLJ 1992

1992 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL HAMEED‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Appeal No.82 of 1987, heard on 12th June, 1991.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Munir Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Munir Khan, J
Parties ABDUL HAMEED‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL HAMEED‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Rana Shaukat Ali Khan for Appellant.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S. 468‑‑‑Forgery‑‑‑Accused allegedly made a wrong entry in account book of Market Committee‑‑‑Entry was not made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such entry was made, signed or executed by another person or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knew that it was not made‑‑‑Forgery as defined in Ss.463, 464; P.P.C. was not constituted‑‑ Conviction and sentence of accused under S.468, P.P.C. could not sustain in circumstances. Sharif for the State. Date .of hearing: 12th June, 1991

Judgment & Decree

Abdul Hameed, appellant, stands convicted under section 468, P.P.C. for wrongfully showing the amount of cheque NoA/10/9884 dated 19‑12‑1975 as Rs.40,630 instead of correct figure Le. Rs.60,630 by the learned Special Judge (Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha, vide his order, dated 6‑1‑1987.

2. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant on a shot legal point, so I need not set out the facts in detail and enter into the merits of the case. I find that the allegations against the petitioner that he made wrong entry in A Accounts Book of Market Committee, Faisalabad, if accepted at its face value, does not constitute forgery as defined under section 463/464, P.P.C. The relevant provisions of law maybe produced conveniently:‑‑ "Section 463.‑‑‑ Whoever makes any false document or part of a document, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery." Section 464.‑‑‑ A person is said to make a false document‑‑ First.‑‑‑ Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he 'knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or Secondly.‑‑‑ Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.‑‑‑ Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration." Since in the instant case, the entry was not made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such entry has been made, signed or executed by another person or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, so the main ingredient of an offence punishable under section 468, P.P.C. i.e. forgery, having not been proved, the conviction of the appellant under section 468, P.P.C. cannot sustain.

3. For what has been said above, this appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of bail bond. SA./A‑1366/L Appeal accepted.