1976 P Cr (PLP)
Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1976 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, J |
| Parties | Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 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 1976 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 P Cr (PLP) (Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muzaffar Qadir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 468/471 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898). S. 561‑A‑Forgery‑Quashment of criminal proceedings‑Petitioner, accused of supplying incorrect and inflected figures regarding produc tion capacity of his factory and capital investment with a view to influence loan granting authorities of Small Industries Corporation‑ Contention that no case of forgery was made out and petitioner at best was liable for attempted cheating‑Contention, held, correct‑Proceedings quashed, in circumstances.
[Quashment of criminal proceedings]. [Forgery]. Khalilur Rehman Ramdey, A. A: G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muzaffar Qadir for Petitioner. Khalilur Rehman Ramdey, A. A: G. for the State. `This is an application by Muhammad Siddique under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for the quashment of the proceedings under sections 468 and 471/511, P. P. C. pending against the petitioner in the Court of the Special Judge. The allegation against him is that in his application for loan to the Small Industries Corporation he gave incorrect figures, showed inflated capital and gave incorrect and inflated figures as to the production capacity of his factory, with a view to influence the authorities incharge of sanctioning loan to sanction the loan applied for by him.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that making false or incorrect entries in a register or document do not amount to forgery as defined in sections 463 and 464, P. P. C. In support of this he relied on Ali Akbar v. The State (P L D 1968 Dacca 519). The learned Assistant Advocate‑General (6) conceded as to the correctness of this legal contention but submitted that the allegations against the petitioner disclose an offence under section 420/511, P. P. C. (attempt to cheat), because the relevant officers of the Small Industries Corporation would have relied on the incorrect facts and figures supplied by the petitioner with regard to the capital investment of the production capacity of his factory. It is only such data which is taken into account by the authorities for considering the desirability of advancing loan to the applicant industrialists. He submitted that the learned trial Magistrate had erred in striking off the charge under section 420, P. P. C. and charging him under sections 468, 471 and 511, P. P. C. instead.
4. I am inclined to agree with the learned Assistant Advocate‑General. The application is, therefore, accepted and the proceedings against the petitioner under sections 468 and 471/511, P. P. C. are, therefore, quashed. It is, however, open to the learned trial Magistrate to amend the charge and try the petitioner for the offence made out against him. It is also open to the State to make proper application in that respect, if so advised. Copy to the learned trial Magistrate. Order accordingly.