1984 PLP 1531 (MLD)
FAQIR BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1531 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khizar Hayat, J. |
| Parties | FAQIR BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1531 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1531 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khizar Hayat, J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1531 (MLD) (FAQIR BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.R. Khalid for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 26th June, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 471--Sentence, reduction in--Accused although admitting to have used a forged education certificate, nevertheless, appearing to have committed offence under stress and strain of circumstances like, unemployment--Petitioner, held, entitled to indulgence of Court--Sentence reduced from one year to 9 months' R.I. in circumstances.--[Sentence]. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 26th June, 1984. This revision petition is directed against the order of Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, dated 3-4-1984, whereby he upheld the conviction of the petitioner under section 468/471, P.P.C. recorded by Magistrate Ist Class, Dera Ghazi Khan vide his order dated 21-5-1984 who sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.100 on each count. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count.
2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner sought service in Dera Ghazi Khan Police by showing educational certificate of middle pass whereas he was not so, this fact came to light later and the Superintendent of Police, Dera Ghazi Khan, got a case registered against the petitioner and few others by writing letter No.24963-67 dated 9-12-1982 to S.H.O. Police Station City Dera Ghazi Khan. The case against the petitioner investigated and put in Court for trial. It is also on record that the petitioner was employed on 19-9-1982 on the basis of said educational certificate however on detection of this forgery he was discharged on 12-12-1982 forenoon.
3. At the trial a charge under section 468/471, P.P.C. was framed against the petitioner. While pleading guilty to the charge he made the following statement:- "I admit the allegation. I was out of job. A person got me this certificate by receiving a sum of Rs.200 from me. I have passed 6th class but I got the job in Police Department on the basis of this certificate." He, therefore, begged to be excused.
4. Learned trial Court considering the statement of the petitioner as plea of guilty convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. An appeal was taken to the Court of Sessions Judge, who dismissed the same observing that the petitioner failed to point out any factor suggesting that the sentence awarded suffered from an illegality. He further observed that it is not denied that the petitioner had not pleaded guilty. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court through filing of the instant revision petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. A bare perusal of the documents and the two judgments of lower Courts appended with petition show that the petitioner had not admitted to have forged the alleged fictitious education certificate, therefore, to my mind, he cannot be convicted for the offence of forgery under section 468, P.P.C. which is hereby set aside. As for his conviction under section 471, P.P.C., is concerned the petitioner has clearly admitted that he knew the aforesaid educational certificate to be false yet he used it for securing employment in Dera Ghazi Khan Police. The offence contemplated by section 471, P.P.C. therefore, stands proved against the petitioner and is hereby maintained.
6. This brings me to the question of sentence. The petitioner appears to have committed the offence under the stress and strain of circumstance like unemployment, etc, therefore, I feel that the petitioner is entitled to the indulgence by this Court. In this view of the matter. I think that the ends of justice would be fairly met if the sentence is reduced from 1 year to 9 months' (nine months) rigorous imprisonment. Ordered accordingly.
7. This petition is partly accepted in the terms indicated above. S.G.D. Petition partly accepted.