1985 P Cr (PLP)

Malik Mahmood Majid Khan for Appellant. Sadiq Hayat Lodhi for the State. Date of hearing: 9th July, 1984. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 13‑3‑1978 convicted Zawar Hussain appellant under section 420, 468/471, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Shahbaz Khan was convicted under section 420/109, P.P.C. and 468/471/ 109, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced them to two years' R.I. on each count, with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The appellants were working as foot constables. The charge against them was that they in collusion with each other and Sana Ullah absconder accused helped him (Sana Ullah) in getting prepared a bogus release order on his jail warrant on 8‑1‑1976 and that as a result of the said bogus release order Sana Ullah illegally and fraudulently secured his release from the Camp Jail, Lahore.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Sh. Muhammad Din P.W. 9 the handwriting expert examined the writing on the jail warrant of Sana Ullah absconder with the specimen writing of Zawar Hussain. He stated that only questioned writing marked as P.W.9/A tallied with the corresponding specimen writing of Zawar Hussain. Irshad Beg Head Constable P.W.3 stated that Sana Ullah accused was taken to the Court of Magistrate by Shahbaz Khan appellant on 29‑12‑1975, 2‑1‑1976, 8‑1‑1976. Siraj‑ud‑Din Reader P.W.4 stated that Zawar Hussain appellant was attached as a Naib‑Court to the Court of Magistrate 1st Class. He stated that order P.W.1/B on the jail warrant was not in the hand of the Magistrate. He stated that the alteration in date 12‑1‑1976 at P.W.4/C and the date as 8‑1‑1976 were in the hand of Zawar Hussain constable. The rest of the evidence either concerns Sana Ullah co‑accused or is of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr. P.C. the appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In defence they examined six witnesses.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence of the forgery of the release order by the appellants: Conversely the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the charge against the appellant was that they forged/abetted forgery of the release order of Sana Ullah accused on the jail warrant but the prosecution has failed to prove that the release order was written/ prepared by the appellants. The mere fact that two dates on the warrants were in the hand of Zawar Hussain Naib‑Court is not a proof of the forgery of the release order by him. Similarly the mere fact that Shahbaz foot‑constable used to take the appellant from lock‑up to the Court does not show that the release order was forged by them or with their connivance. To my mind there is nothing on the record to connect the appellants with the forgery of the release order of Sana Ullah co‑accused. As far offence under section 420, P.P.C. I find that the appellants did not induce anyone to part with the property and as such section 420, P. P. C. is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge of forging release order of Sana Ullah by the appellants. For what has been stated above, giving them the benefit of doubt, the appellants are acquitted of the charges. M. Y. H. Appeal allowed.