1985 P Cr (PLP)
SIRAJUDDIN Appellant Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Farkhruddin H. Shaikh, J |
| Parties | SIRAJUDDIN Appellant Versus THE STATE Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Farkhruddin H. Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (SIRAJUDDIN Appellant Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Z.P. Naqvi for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 17th February, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 409‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(21‑‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S.114(g)‑‑Misappropriation‑‑Accused, as Chief Booking Clerk of Railway, allegedly misappropriating consignments by making forged entries in loading book and forging signatures of two guards, in two different transactions,‑Prosecution not producing two guards, in evidence, whose signatures have been allegedly forged by accused, although they being most material witnesses and their names have been transpired in inquiry‑‑Statements of these guards, recorded during inquiry not mentioning anything about entry in loading book or about forgery of their signatures‑‑Omission to produce such evidence justifying presumption that if they had been produced as witness they migh not have supported prosecution case‑‑Held, in ,absence of their evidence it could not be said that statements in writing given by them were correct or their signatures had been forged by accused‑‑Accused acquitted. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 409‑‑Misappropriation of consignment by Booking Clerk of Railway‑‑Guards whose signatures were allegedly forged not produced by prosecution‑‑Specimen signatures of these guards were taken as suspects‑‑Only guard produced by prosecution not giving relevant evidence‑‑Such evidence, held, did not advance prosecution case‑ Accused acquitted. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.409‑‑Misappropriation‑‑Specimen signature of a prosecution witness whose signatures had been allegedly forged by accused, not obtained, to be sent to handwriting Expert for comparison‑‑Such evidence, held, was of no avail to prosecution‑‑Accused acquitted. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ‑‑‑S. 409‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.342‑‑Misappropria tion‑‑Evidence of a prosecution witness whose signatures were allegedly forged by accused, not put to accused while recording his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.‑‑Evidence of such prosecution witness could not be considered against accused. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 409, 461, 471 & 477‑‑Accused being charged for forgery and breach of trust but convicted for‑ offence under S. 409, P.P.C. by trial Court‑‑Presumption arising that accused was acquitted of charge of forgery‑‑Proof of offence of breach of trust depending upon proof of forgery‑‑Forgery not proved, accused, held, could not be said to have committed breach of trust in respect of consignments relating to alleged forged entries‑‑Accused acquitted. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 409‑‑Railway administration and police taking seven years to complete investigation and to decide fitness of case for trial in a Court of law‑‑Trial Court taking three more years to decide case‑‑Delay caused, held, was surprising. Syed Murtaza for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mr. Jalilur Rehman (Ex. 10) who had conducted departmental inquiry, had obtained written statements from the above guards. He has produced copies of those statements, which make interesting reading. A. Hameed guard made the following statement in writing (Ex. 12) "I worked 367‑Up Ex. Kyc to Kot. on 18‑11‑1969 leaving Kyc at 22. 20 arriving Kot, at 2‑48 on 19‑11‑1969 during the journey no work. Yours (Sd.) (Abdul Hameed) Lg. Gd. 367‑Up on 18‑11‑1969 at Kyc." Dt. 23‑6‑1970. He does not say that he did not sign the loading book, nor does he say that his signature on the Loading Book is forged. In the t absence of his evidence in Court, it cannot be said that the statement in writing given by him is correct or that the signature on the Loading Book purporting to be his, is forged.
11. Another guard concerned was Mirza Ishtiaq Beg. Mr. Jalilur Rehman has produced copy of his statement in writing as Ex. 14, which is not intellegible. It runs as under: "To, S.C.I. Kyc. Sir, As desired by you the work done statement of 367 dated 17‑8‑1969 is submitted as under:‑ Loading form IN D (53) (1) P/van C 63999 LHR 50 B/L Made over too/g going guard at Kot, under his clear signature(53) Fifty‑three (2) TCR 4943 Shujabad 3 Three only Total (53) Fifty‑three only I attended your Office with RI journal for your perusal as promised by me on 12‑9‑1970 and I waited upto 14/hrs. Yours obediently, (Sd.) Mirza Ishaq Baig Guard Kyc. Dt.14‑9‑1970" He too does not state anything about the entry in the Loading Book or about his signature on the Loading Book being forged. Ommission to produce him in evidence shall justify the presumption that, had he appeared as a witness, his evidence would not have supported the prosecution case.
12. It may be stated that specimen signatures of these two guards were obtained as they were suspects. The only guard who has been examined is Zaheer Ahmed (Exh. 2) who has deposed that on 17‑11‑1969 no bale was loaded at Landhi on 367‑UP Parcel train, on which he was the guard. It is no body's case that any loading was done on this date. He does not even remember whether 367‑UP train stops at Landhi or not. His evidence does not advance the prosecution case at all.
13. Specimen signature of P.W. Abdul Wahid (Exh. 5) Porter, whose signature is alleged to have been forged by the appellant on the risk note Exh. 6, was not obtained, nor sent to the Expert for comparison with the appellant's handwriting. Hence his evidence is of no help to the prosecution. Again while recording statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C., the trial Court did not put any question to him about this piece of evidence i.e. alleged forged signature of Abdul Wahid on risk note Exh.
6. Hence on this ground also the evidence of P.W. Abdul Waheed cannot be considered against the appellant.
14. Although the appellant was charged with forgery and breach of trust, but he has been convicted by the trial Court of offence under section 409, P.P.C. only. It shall be presumed that the appellant has been acquitted of the charge of forgery. Now the proof of the offence of breach of trust, in fact depended upon proof of forged entries in the loading book. If these entries have not been proved to be forged it cannot be said that the appellant committed breach of trust in respect of the consignments relating to those entries. It is also surprising that the Railway Administration and the Police took seven years to complete the investigation and decide that the case was fit for being tried in a Court of law. The F.I. R. was lodged on 28‑12‑1970 while final challan was submitted on 10‑2‑1977. The trial Court took three more years to decide the case on 28‑12‑1980.
15. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paras., it is clear that the charge of offence under section 409, P.P.C. has not been brought home to the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. His appeal is therefore K allowed and he is acquitted of the offence with which he has been charged. He is on bail. His bail bond stand discharged. H.A Appeal allowed.