1984 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. Muhammad Shaukat Tarar for Appellant. Irshad Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 5th July, 1984. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption whereby he on 2nd November, 1976 convicted Zahoor Hussain appellant under sections 468, 471 and 420, P.P.C. and sentenced him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default thereof to six months' R.I. on each count with the direction that the sentences shall run consecutively. The trial Court also convicted Muhammad Sharif co -accused and acquitted the others.

1. The charge was that he on 6th August, 1964 got executed a fictitious power-of-attorney in the name of Nabi Bakhsh on the basis of which his co-accused Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Sharif identified him as Nabi Bakhsh and his co-accused Muhammad Nazir posed himself Nabi Bakhsh. Further on the basis of this fictitious power-of-attorney, the appellant got prepared a forged and fictitious certificate through Muhammad Khan Girdawar and Ghulam Rasool Patwari and then on the basis of this fictitious certificate got allotted agricultural land in two villages and further sold the land situated in village Khute Shah to his co-accused Muhammad Nazir and that Nazir was identified as Nabi Bakhsh by Muhammad Khan and Muhammad son of Bahadar co-accused. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses. They supported the prosecution case. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as far the allegation of forgery by the appellant, there is no evidence on the record and that so far as offence punishable under section 420, P.P.C. is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove any cheating by the appellant. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant, inasmuch as, there is no reliable evidence to show that the power-of-attorney was forged by the appellant. From the statement of Maqbool Hussain P.W.1 and Abdul Hafeez and Saleh Muhammad, it does not appear that the appellant had taken any part in the execution of forged power-of-attorney. Since there is no evidence that the appellant either produced the forged power-of -attorney before the Revenue Officer or used the same elsewhere, therefore, to my mind, his conviction under section 471, P.P.C. was also not justified. Coming to his conviction under section 420, P.P.C., I find that there is no evidence that the appellant induced someone to part with the property. The prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable under section 420, P.P.C. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the appellant. Giving him benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charges. M. Y. H. Appeal accepted.