2022 PLP 456 (MLD)

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.

The appellant by preferring the instant appeal has impugned judgment dated 23.07.1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadpur, whereby the appellant for an offence punishable under section 468, P.P.C., for having forged the signatures of the private respondent on letters addressed to Bureau of Curriculum and Secretary of Education Government of Sindh with intention to cause damage to him (private respondent) has been convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.15000/-and in default whereof to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year, which is against the mandate section 544-A(2), Cr.P.C., which prescribes maximum punishment for six months only, on account of default in payment of fine/compensation.

2. It is the case of the complainant that he and appellant established "Faran Educational Society Tando Adam" being its President and General Secretary. The appellant by misusing his position as General Secretary of the said "Society" forged his signatures on various documents. The Faisla between him and the appellant was held by the nekmards, thereby the appellant was found guilty and advised to tender apology to him, which he failed to tender. It was in these circumstances, the appellant had filed a Direct Complaint before the Court having jurisdiction for prosecution of the appellant for the above said offence. It was brought on record after due enquiry.

3. The appellant joined the trial, did not plead guilty to the charge, the complainant in order to prove his case examined him and his witnesses and then closed the side.

4. The appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C denied the complainant's allegation by pleading innocence. He did not examine himself on oath, but examined DW Raja Dilawar in his defence and then closed the side.

5. It was stated by DW Dilawar in his statement that the dispute between the appellant and the complainant arose when the complainant was removed from the President-ship of the "Faran Educational Society Tando Adam".

6. On evaluation of evidence, so produced by the complainant learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as above by way of judgment which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by way of instant appeal, as is stated above.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant, as the complainant was removed from the President ship of the "Society"; no document alleged to have been forged has been produced by the complainant in original and the evidence which is produced by the complainant has been believed by learned trial Court without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for acquittal of the appellant.

8. Learned A.P.G for the State sought for dismissal of the instant appeal by supporting the impugned judgment.

9. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

10. Section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C prescribes that no Court shall take cognizance of offence relating to document except on complaint, in writing of Court where it is found to be forged. In the instant case, neither there is finding of any Court that the documents used are forged nor the complaint is filed by the Court itself or anyone else under authorization of such Court. Such omission has made the very complaint to be infirmed/barred under the provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C.

11. On merits, admittedly, the appellant and the private respondent were President and General Secretary of "Faran Educational Society" and had been litigating with each other on Civil side. No document, which is found to have been forged by the appellant by way of impugned judgment, has been produced in evidence by the complainant in original. There is no expert evidence, which may suggest that those documents have been forged by the appellant. In that situation, it would be hard to make the appellant guilty for the above said offence, on the basis of evidence of the Nekmards/PWs Muhammad Ali and Abdul Wahab under the pretext that the appellant has admitted his guilt before them. Indeed, the involvement of the appellant in the case is appearing to be doubtful one and he is found entitled to benefit of doubt.

12. In case of Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345). It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:- "For giving benefit of doubt to an accused, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused, then he would be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but of right."

13. In view of above, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant together with the impugned judgment are set aside. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the offence for which he has been charged, tried and convicted by learned trial Court. The appellant is present in Court on bail, his bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged. SA/Z-8/Sindh Appeal allowed.