2008 PLP 1529 (MLD)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

The record of the learned trial Court as well as of the investigating agency has already been received and the same has been perused.

2. Through this appeal the appellant-complainant has called in question the order, dated 8-12-2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kharian, District Gujrat whereby, upon acceptance of his application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. respondent No.1 was acquitted in case F.I.R. No. 150 registered at Police Station Kakrali, District Gujrat on 1-6-2000 for offences under sections 420/467/468/471, P.P.C.

3. In support of this appeal it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that sufficient incriminatory material was available on the record of investigation prima facie establishing culpability of respondent No.1 and, therefore, the learned trial Court was not justified in acquitting the said respondent at a premature stage.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the record of this case with his assistance it has been observed that the allegation against respondent No.1 was that he had forged affidavits of five prosecution witnesses in a murder case and on the basis of such forged affidavits the accused persons in the said murder case were opined by the Investigating Officer to, be innocent. It may be true that during the investigation some material had become available on the record showing that respondent No.1 had made some efforts to obtain stamp-papers and to get the said stamp-papers scribed for the purposes of preparing affidavits but at the same time it is equally true that there is no material available on the record to even seriously allege that it was respondent No.1 himself who had either committed the alleged forgery or had used any forged document. It is not denied that respondent No.1 was not the beneficiary of the alleged forgery. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the thumb-impressions available on the relevant affidavits being forged was legally inconsequential against respondent No.1 inasmuch as the said report had not established that it was respondent No.1 and none else who had placed the relevant thumb-impressions on the affidavits. The criminal case in hand had originated in the year, 2000 and respondent No.1 had been acquitted by the learned trial Court in the year, 2001. At the time of his acquittal respondent No.1 was about seventy years of age. About three more years have already gone by ever since. After registration of the above mentioned criminal case respondent No.1 has been in and out of jail and apparently he has already suffered enough for the alleged preparation having made by him for procuring the relevant affidavits. It goes without saying that preparation for an offence by itself does not constitute any offence at all.

5. For what has been discussed above no occasion has been found by me for interference with the impugned acquittal of respondent No.1 and, therefore, this appeal is hereby summarily dismissed under section 421, Cr.P.C. N.H.Q./F-48/L Appeal dismissed.