1985 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑Ss. 468, 420, 467, 379 & 109‑‑Forgery for purpose of preparing false power of attorney‑‑Oral as well as documentary evidence very much proving that accused affixed his thumb‑impression on power of attorney‑‑Report of Finger Print Expert supporting case of prosecution‑‑Prosecution witnesses quite independent and standing test of cross‑examination and no inherent infirmity found in their statements‑‑Evidence of witnesses gaining support by documents and report of finger print expert‑‑Defence failing to rebut prosecution case and its evidence‑‑Statement of one of defence witnesses rather supporting prosecution‑‑Conviction and sentence maintained in circumstances. Sh. Khurshid Ahmad for Appellant. S.D. Qureshi for the State. Date of hearing: 8th October, 1984. These two Criminal Appeals Nos. 459 of 1969 by Ahmad Hassan, Muhammad Siddiq and Jamil appellants and 378 of 1969 by Manzoor Ahmad appellant arise from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, (Additional District Magistrate), Gujranwala whereby he on 31‑5‑1969 convicted them under section 468/420, P.P.C. and sentenced Manzoor Ahmad appellant to three years R.I. under section 420, P.P.C. and two years' R.I. under section 468, P.P.C. The other appellants were sentenced to one year's R.I. on each count. I propose to dispose of these appeals through single judgment.

2. Manzoor Ahmad appellant was a Patwari and the others are private persons. The allegations against the appellants were that Manzoor Ahmad appellant forged entries in claim form No. 304 and made interpolations in the Fard Haqiat to show that the documents were for the claim of land measuring 101 Bigahs and 3 Biswas and that Manzoor Ahmad got allotted 388 Kanals of land in the name of Noor Muhammad the real claimant. The appellants then in collusion with each other personating Jamil appellant as Noor Muhammad, the real claimant, got executed and registered a fake power‑of‑attorney in favour of Ahmad Hassan appellant. Siddique appellant identified Jamil as Noor Muhammad and on the basis of this fake power‑of‑attorney, Ahmad Hassan sold the land for Rs.35,000 to Munir Hussain and Muhammad Aslam P.Ws. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution case examined 18 witnesses. Ehsan Ahmad P.W.1 produced copies of power‑of‑attorney Exh. P.A. and of Khata No. 15 of RL‑II Exh. .P.B. before the Police. Muhammad Aslam P.W.2 stated that Manzoor Ahmad Patwari appellant had induced him to purchase land of Noor Muhammad and for that purpose he summoned Ahmad Hassan appellant in Patwarkhana. Manzoor Ahmad told the witness that the land was free from all encumbrances. It was on the assurance of the Patwari that the witness purchased five Killas and seven Kanals of land situated in village Kheway‑wali for Rs.10,

000. Ahmad Hassan as an attorney for Noor Muhammad executed sale deed Exh. P.D. He also produced sale deed Exh. P.D. before the Police. Muhammad Hussain P.W.3 stated that Munir Hussain and Muhammad Aslam P.Ws. produced registered sale deeds P.H. and P.J. respectively before the police. Noor Muhammad P.W.4 is the crucial witness. He stated that he never executed any power‑of‑attorney in favour of Ahmad Hassan. He further stated that on his claim form the land was got fraudulently allotted in his name and then sold away by Ahmad Hassan appellant on the basis of fake power‑of‑attorney purporting to have been executed by him (the witness) in favour of Ahmad Hassan. The witness submitted application for action to the Superintendent of Police. Abdul Khan P.W.5 is a petition writer. He states that he had written power‑of‑attorney Exh. P.F. in favour of Ahmad Hassan appellant. He further stated that on the same day he prepared agreement Exh. P.G. with regard to the sale of the land of Noor Muhammad and that on 12‑9‑1973 he wrote sale deed Exh. P.H. at the instance of Ahmad Hassan appellant whereby Ahmad Hassan sold that land for Rs.25,000 to Munir Hussain etc. as an attorney of Noor Muhammad. He further stated that Ahmad Hassan had sold some land to Muhammad Aslam P.W. for Rs.3,000 vide sale deed P.D. written by him at the instance of Ahmad Hassan to appellant. In cross‑examination he stated that Siddiq appellant was not known to him and that Siddiq had not identified anybody before him. He also stated that none of the other accused were present at the time of writing of the document except Ahmad Hassan and Siddiq accused /appellants. He further stated that Manzoor Ahmad Patwari was not present when the documents were written by him. Allah Ditta Patwari P.W.6 stated that on 29‑8‑1965 he had produced claim form Exh. P.K., Fard Haqiat Exh. P.L. and application Exh. P.M. before the police. The witness had also prepared copy P.O. of Khata No. 15 of village Kheway‑wali. Ghulam Abbas P.W.7 stated that in the year, 1963 he visited the office of Manzoor Ahmad Patwari where Ahmad Hassan appellant was also present. Manzoor Ahmad Patwari appellant had claim No. 304 with him and within his hearing Manzoor Ahmad asked Ahmad Hassan appellant to become attorney on behalf of Noor Muhammad so that the land may be disposed of. Muhammad Nawaz P.W.8 stated that he was present in tehsil office. Manzoor Ahmad Patwari and Ahmad Hassan appellant were also present there. They asked him to sign power‑of‑attorney and sale deeds, so on their asking he signed the documents. He further stated that he had attested registered sale deed Exh. P.H. Abdullah Khan P.W.9 stated that Ahmad Hassan appellant sold about 35/36 Acres of land to Munir Hussain and received the sale price. The sale deed Exh. P.J. was executed and .he signed the same. He further stated that it was possible that he might have attested the document which was in favour of Aslam. Inayat Ullah A.S.I. P.W.10 partly investigated the case. Muhammad Sharif P.W.11 stated that sale deed Exh. P.H. was written in his presence and that he at the instance of Ahmad Hassan signed the same. Munir Hussain P.W.12 stated that Manzoor Ahmad Patwari had induced him to purchase the land allotted to one Noor Muhammad and had showed RL‑11, power‑of ‑attorney and claim form to him. The documents reveal that the land had been confirmed in the name of Noor Muhammad so he purchased the said land through registered sale deed Exh. P.H. for Rs. 20,000 which were paid to Ahmad Hassan appellant the attorney of Noor Muhammad. The witness produced registered sale deed Exh. P.M. before the police. Ali Akbar P.W.13 stated that Munir Hussain P.W. had produced registered sale deed Exh. P.H. before the police vide Memo. Exh. P.H./A signed by him. Mahboob Ali Khan S.I. P.W.14 partly investigated the case and took into possession registered deed Exh. P.R., P.H., P.J. and copy of the power‑of‑attorney Exh. P.A. copy of registered RL‑11 Exh. P.B. Allah Ditta Patwari P.W. had produced claim form Exh. P.K. and Fard Haqiat Exh. P.L. before him. Abdul Aziz Patwari P.W.15 stated that he on 7‑5‑1962 took the charge of the Halqa from Manzoor Ahmad appellant but claim No. 304 was not handed over to him. He further stated that on 6‑6‑1962 Manzoor Ahmad appellant came to him and handed over claim form No.

304. He again came to him on 7‑6‑1962 and took back the claim form from him. These facts were entered by him in Rozenamcha No.

310. Shakir Hussain handwriting expert P.W.16 stated that the questioned writings and digits did not contain sufficient identifying data therefore he was not in a position to give any opinion. He further stated that on 22‑3‑1966 he examined signatures Exh. P.F./4 on Exh. P.F., P.F./5 on Exh. P.F., Exh. P.H./4 on Exh. P.H., Exh. P.R.15, Exh, P.H./6, Exh. P.H./7, Exh. P.H./8 on Exh. P.H.; signatures of Ahmad Hassan Exh. P.J./1 to 4 on documents Exh. P.J. and compared the same with the specimen signatures on simple papers Exh. P.X., P.Y., P.Z., P.AA., P.BB., P.CC. and signatures Exh. P.M./1 on Exh. P.M. signatures P.D.D./1 on Exh. P.D.D. and signatures P.E.E./1 on Exh. P.E.E. He was of the opinion that the question and specimen signatures were executed by one and the same person. Mauls Bukhsh S.I. Finger Print Expert P.W.17 stated that he examined and compared the impressions marked as P.F./6 and P.F./7 on Exh. P.F. (General Power of Attorney) with the impressions on the simple paper of Muhammad Siddiq Exh. P.J.J. and was of the opinion that the impressions marked as P.F./6 and P.F./7 on the General Power of Attorney Exh. P.F. are identical with the left thumb impressions of Jameel Ahmad appellant. Muhammad Suleman P.W.18 stated that according to register Haqdaran of village Khanpur, Noor Muhammad was owner of one Bigah and three Bigahs. Exh. P.L.L. was its attested copy. The witnesses also produced copy of Jamabandi Exh. P.M.M.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence three witnesses were produced. Ashraf Shah D.W.1 stated that he was at Wazirabad alongwith Ahmad Hassan appellant when Munir Hussain, his brother‑in‑law Muhammad Aslam P.Ws. alongwith Muhammad Aslam Patwari met them and requested Ahmad Hassan to become attorney of Noor Muhammad. They further told the witness that they had purchased claim of Noor Muhammad and as such wanted to get power‑of‑attorney from Noor Muhammad in favour of someone for the transfer of land to them. The witness further stated that it was on their request that Ahmad Hassan agreed to act as an attorney of Noor Muhammad. Nazar Muhammad D.W.2 stated that Munir Hussain P.W. is his brother‑in‑law who told him that he had purchased a claim from one Noor Muhammad and requested him to act as General Attorney of Noor Muhammad and Ghulam Haider Lambardar and others had told him that Noor Muhammad was a genuine person. The witness while pointing towards Jamil accused /appellant who was preset in the Court stated that he was shown as Noor Muhammad. He further stated that when they were going towards tehsil, Ahmad Hassan appellant and others met them. Munir Hussain P.W. then requested Ahmad Hassan to become attorney instead of him: On this Ahmad Hassan enquired about Noor Muhammad Lambardar assured him that Noor Muhammad was a genuine person. Muhammad Siddique Moharrir D.W.3 produced some irrelevant record.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts; that the prosecution witnesses other than the public servants are not reliable and that from the statement of the petition writer it was very much proved that no fake and fictitious power‑of‑attorney was prepared at the instance of Muhammad Siddiq and that Jamil and Manzoor were not even present at the time of the execution of the document. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. As fur Siddiq I find that the only evidence against him is that he attested power‑of‑attorney Exh. P.F. as a witness. There is no other direct or indirect reliable evidence to connect him with the preparation of false document or the commission of offence of cheating by the co‑accused. To my mind the prosecution has failed to prove case against him beyond reasonable doubts. So far as the other appellants are concerned, from the oral as well as documentary evidence as detailed above it is very much proved that Jameel affixed his thumb impressions on Exh. P.F. for Noor Muhammad Maula Bukhsh Finger Print Expert has clearly stated that the impression marked as Exh. P.F./8 on power‑of‑attorney Exh. P.8 was identical with the left thumb impression of Jameel appellant. In this view of the matter, the statement of the petition writer that except Siddiq and Ahmad Hassan, the other accused were not present at the time of the execution of Mukhtarnama appears to be false. From the statement of the expert referred to above, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that false document was prepared in favour of Ahmad Hassan appellant and that Noor Muhammad the real claimant had not executed the document. From the statement of the witnesses and circumstances it is very much clear that Ahmad Hassan played important part in the preparation of forged power‑of‑attorney Exh. P.F. It is also clear from the prosecution evidence that Manzoor Ahmad Patwari also played an active part in the entire occurrence. He induced Munir Hussain and Muhammad Aslam P.Ws. to purchase land of Noor Muhammad. He assured that the land wasp free from all encumbrances. Muhammad Aslam P.W.2, Noor Muhammad, P.W.4, Allah Ditta Patwari P.W.6 Ghulam Abbas P.W.7, Muhammad Nawaz P.W.8, Abdullah Khan P.W.9, Muhammad Sharif P.W.11, Munir Hussain P.W.12, Abdul Aziz Patwari P.W.15 are quite independent witnesses. They have stood the test of cross‑examination. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any inherent infirmity in their statements. Their evidence stands supported by the documents and the reports of the Finger Print Expert. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. The statement of D.W.2 has rather supported the case of the prosecution. For all these reasons I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly convicted Ahmad Hassan, Jamil and Manzoor Ahmad appellants under section 468/420, P.P.C. The sentence awarded to them is not excessive. Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 1969 filed by Manzoor Ahmad is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 459 .of 1969 is partly accepted. Muhammad Siddiq is acquitted of the charge whereas the convictions and sentences of Ahmad Hassan and Jameel are maintained. The appellants namely Manzoor Ahmad, Ahmad Hassan and Jamil shall surrender before the trial Court immediately. M.Y.H. Appeal partly accepted.