2006 PLP 1709 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Baqir Hussain and Jafar Hussain appellants were tried by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha in case F.I.R. No.44, dated 14-2-2002, registered under sections 420/468/409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Police Station Khushab, District Khushab, who vide judgment dated 16-12-2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-- Baqir Hussain Appellant: Under section To undergo R.I. for one year and 420, P.P.C. fine in the sum of Rs.1,

000. In default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. Under section To undergo R.I. for one year and a 466, P.P.C. fine of Rs.1,000 in default whereof S.I. for one month. Jaffar Hussain Appellant: Under section To undergo R.I. for one year with 420, P.P.C. a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default whereof S.I. for one month. Under section To undergo R.I. for one year with 5(2), a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default Prevention of Corruption Act, whereof S.I. for one month. 1947 Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to both the appellants and through this appeal, the above said judgment of conviction and sentence has been challenged by both the appellants.

2. Succinctly the facts of the prosecution case as per complaint (Exh.PF) are that on 12-2-2002 Tariq Mehmood complainant was posted as Chief Officer Municipal Committee, Khushab when one Zamir Hussain (P.W.3) came to Haji Muhammad Ramzan Sub-Engineer (P.W.2) for confirmation of entries of birth certificate of his children. He examined the record and found the entries bogus. He prepared report Exh.PF narrating all the facts and sent the same to Tehsil Nazim Khushab for registration of case and accordingly instant case was registered against both the appellants, who were then posted as Clerk and Naib Qasid, respectively, in Tehsil Municipal Administration, Khushab.

3. After completion of the investigation report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court and copies required under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. were supplied to the appellants and charge was framed which was denied by them and the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellants produced as many as eight witnesses.

4. Tariq Mehmood, T.O. Finance TMA, Khushab P.W. is complainant of the case while Haji Muhammad Ramzan, Sub-Engineer (P.W.2) on the move of Zamir Hussain got verified the correctness of the certificates issued by the appellants..P.W.3 Zamir Hussain is father of the children who had paid Rs.1,250 to the appellants for issuance of certificates while Muhammad Bashir Qureshi, Handwriting Expert appeared as P.W.4. Muhammad Imtiaz (P.W.5) is Vaccinator while Ghaus Muhammad (P.W.6) is private witness and (P.W.7) Muhammad Ashraf, S.H.O. and (P.W.8) Shaukat Ali, A.S.-I. had investigated the case.

5. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, statements of both the appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded and they professed their innocence while deposing that the case was false manipulated by the political opposition of the Tehsil Nazim Khushab. None of the P.Ws. had deposed against them. On conclusion of trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated above, hence this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no evidence against Baqir Hussain and nobody had seen him while preparing forged document. It is further contended that report of the Handwriting Expert alone is not sufficient to maintain the conviction as it is based on Photostat copies. It is also contended that Baqir Hussain appellant was not custodian of the record and the date on which these documents were prepared was also not known to the prosecution. It is next contended that Jaffar Hussain had no connection with the commission of the offence and he has already undergone 6 months sentence which will meet the ends of justice.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposes this appeal on the ground that P.W.3 Zamin Hussain has no enmity or grudge to falsely implicate the appellants in the present case and the prosecution has been enable to prove the case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellants and their conviction and sentence may be maintained.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution. P.W.3 Zamir Hussain is star witness of the prosecution who has categorically stated that Jaffer Hussain appellant came to his shop and promised to get entered birth entries of his children and demanded an amount of Rs.1,250 which was paid to him and after some days he had produced the forged birth certificate of his children to him. Said Zamir Hussain was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but no enmity has been found that Zamir Hussain complainant had falsely implicated Jaffar Hussain in the present case.

9. I have no hesitation in holding that Zamir Hussain (P.W.3) is an independent witness who had no motive to falsely implicate Jaffar Hussain in the present case. He himself has stated against Jaffar Hussain and Jaffar Hussain has failed to shatter his statement during the cross-examination. Statement of Zamir Hussain (P.W.3) is sufficient to connect Jaffar Hussain with the commission of the crime. The other witnesses also provide independent corroboration about preparation of the forged birth certificates which were provided to Zamir Hussin by the appellant Jaffar Hussain. The prayer for reduction of sentence is declined as birth entries now-a days have taken much importance as an accused who can be convicted and sentenced to death, his sentence can be converted into imprisonment for life and his trial can be conducted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 which gives certain benefits to the juvenile accused. In such circumstances forgery of birth certificate entries cannot be taken leniently which is a heinous offence. Hence, this appeal to the extent of Jaffer Hussain appellant No.1 is partly dismissed. His sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 9-2-2004 and the learned trial Court, is directed to issue warrants of arrest of Jaffar Hussain for his committal to jail to serve out the remaining sentence.

10. As far as Baqir Hussain appellant is concerned, except the statement of Handwriting Expert Muhammad Bashir Qureshi (P.W.4), the prosecution has not been able to produce any witness connecting him with the commission of the crime. P.W.1 Tariq Mehmood T.O. and P.W.2 Muhammad Ramzan Sub-Engineer and even P.W.3 Zamir Hussin have not uttered a single word against Baqir Hussain appellant that he was connected with the commission of forgery in any manner. As far as P.W.4 Muhammad Bashir Qureshi Handwriting Expert is concerned, his opinion alone cannot be relied upon for conviction of appellant Baqir Hussain as he has formed an opinion on the basis of Photostat copy of the letter (Exh.P1) allegedly addressed by the appellant to someone else but it was not admitted by the appellant that he had ever written that letter. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove through documentary or oral evidence that Baqir Hussain appellant had prepared the forged documents, which were delivered to P.Ws. by Jaffar Hussain appellant. Hence, appeal to the extent of Baqir Hussain appellant is accepted, the impugned judgment regarding his conviction and sentence is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He having already served out the whole sentence has been released from jail. H.B.T./J-8/L Order accordingly.