1985 PLP 7 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 8th May, 1984. This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of Learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption whereby lie on 7-8-1976 convicted Muhammad Aslam appellant under various sections of Pakistan Penal Code. Under section 468, P.P.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, he was sentenced to 3 months, R.I. and a fine of Rs.100, in default thereof to further R.I. for one month. Under section 420, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) Act 11 of 1947 he was sentenced to one month R.I. and a fine of Rs.100, in default thereof to one month R.I.

2. The appellant was working as Road Inspector in L.M.C. The charge against him is that abusing his position, he fraudulently' and dishonestly prepared the forged muster roll of April, 1972 in respect of one Yousaf Khan and on its basis prepared forged bill and received payment of Rs.102 as his pay and criminally misappropriated this amount by affixing forged signatures of Yousaf Khan and thereby committed offences under sections 409/420/468 and 471, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined, 7 witnesses. Anwar Hussain, Bill Clerk, P.W.2 produced muster roll Exhs.P.B. pay roll Exh.P.C. and appointment file of Yousaf Khan Exh.P.D. Tasneem Islam Pasha P.W. 3 stated that he contacted Ch. Bashir Ahmed, Municipal Engineer and asked him to make the relevant record available which was produced before him. He recorded his observation about the record and handed over the papers to the Inspector Anti-Corruption, for further enquiry. Muhammad, Hussain P.W.4 states that he had asked the appellant to produce Muhammad Yousaf Baildar before him but the appellant failed. to do so and that he subsequently came to know that the Baildar was actually doing the domestic job of the officer. Inayat Ullah P.W.5 stated that pay of Yousaf Khan amounting to Rs.78.20 was paid to Yousaf Khan at the attestation of the appellant. Ghulam Hussain Overseer P.W.6 stated that on the application of Yousaf Khan, portions Exh. P.D/2 and P.D/4 are in the hand of the appellant. Muhammad Shafi P.W.7 stated that he lived in Ahata Beriwala for 15 years. He knew some of the residents of that Ahata and that there was no man with the name of Yousaf Khan son of Jalal Din having residence there.

4. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the incriminating circumstances and produced Rafiq Ahmed D.W.1, Nazir Ahmad D.W.2 in his defence. The trial Court examined Mumtaz Ali Shah, D.S.P., as C.W.1.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of forgery and cheating against the appellant. The learned counsel for the State has, however, supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as there is no evidence on record to the effect that the signatures of Muhammad Aslam were forged by the appellant. The prosecution did not care to get the signatures/ thumb mark of the appellant compared with the signature/thumb mark on the disputed application As for the offence of cheating I find that there is no evidence that the appellant induced someone to part with the property. The evidence produced by the prosecution as referred to above does not disclose the commission of forgery or cheating as defined in Pakistan Penal Code by the appellant.

7. For what has been stated above, there being no satisfactory basis to uphold the convictions of the appellant, the same are hereby B set aside. Giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charges He is on bail. The bail bonds stand discharged. M. Y. H. Appeal accepted.