1980 PLP 908 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1980 PLP 908 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan, Muhammad Afzal Zullah, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Cole (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 908 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Cole (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 908 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan, Muhammad Afzal Zullah,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 908 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 31st May, 1980.
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 20-2-1980 in Cr. A. 250/78).
S. 218-Preparation of incorrect record by public servant showing person not liable to pay abiana as liable to pay and omitting names of persons liable to pay same-Relevant mens rea clearly existing on part of petitioner-Finding of trial Judge as to forgery being committed dishonestly to cause wrongful loss to some and wrongful gain to others, held, unexceptional. Nemo for the State
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J‑The petitioner was tried for dishonestly preparing false "abiana" documents (e. g. water rate khatauni and cultivation Khasra Shudkars) and was convicted by a learned Special Judge Anti -Corruption by his order dated 22‑3‑1978 for an offence under section 468, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corrpution Act II of 1947, and sentenced to R. I. for 1 year and a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in lieu thereof to undergo further imprisonment for nine months.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 1978, which was dismissed by the High Court on 20‑2‑1980 with this modification that instead of section 468, P. P. C. the conviction was recorded under section 218, P. P. C.
3. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
4. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that mere preparation of false or incorrect documents cannot constitute an offence under section 218, P. P. C., unless it was prepared to cause loss or injury to any person. In the instant case, he submitted, this ingredient of section 218, P. P. C. was lacking. The contention has no merit. The record involved in this case was incorrect and false to the knowledge of the petitioner, and from that point of view, as held by the learned trial Judge was dishonestly prepared. The obvious effect of that incorrect, false and dishonestly prepared record was that persons who were not owners or in possession of or who had not cultivated, certain field numbers, were shown as liable to pay the abiana for the same and conversely those who were really liable were not so shown. In these circumstances the relevant mens rea clearly existed on the part of the petitioner and the finding of the learned trial Judge that this forgery was committed dishonestly to cause wrongful loss to some and wrongful gain to others is unexceptionable.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.