1986 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 20th November, 1985 These two Criminal Appeals Nos. 390 of 1985 by Niaz Muhammad and 418 of 1985 by Khan Zaman Khan arise from the judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha whereby he on 10‑6‑1985 convicted them under section 468/34,'P.P.C. and sentenced them to nine months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default thereof further S.I. for five months. I propose to dispose of both these appeals through single judgment.

2. Since after hearing the learned counsel, I feel inclined to set aside the conviction on the short ground that the findings of the learned trial Court accepted at its face value, the appellants could not have been convicted under section 468/34, P.P.C., therefore, I need not set out the facts in detail. The allegations against the appellants were that on the false report of Khan Zaman Khan appellant, Mutation No. 10936 i.e. Exh. P.B. was falsely entered on 10‑11‑1980 by Niaz Ahmad appellant who was a Patwari and subsequently the same was got attested from the Revenue Officer. The learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that Mutation Exh. P.B. was got entered by Khan Zaman Khan accused and that Niaz Ahmad fully knew that the information given to him by Khan Zaman Khan which was entered in the mutation was absolutely against the facts. The learned Special Judge observed that this false entry was made by the appellants for the purposes of cheating in furtherance of their common intention. So he convicted and sentenced them. I find that there are no allegations of any alteration in the document or part thereof. The only allegations are that Khan Zaman Khan made a false report which was dishonestly entered by Niaz Ahmed appellant knowing that the same was factually incorrect. Making A of false document, which is one of important ingredients of forgery, has been defined in section 464, P.P.C. which reads as under: "

464. Making a false document.‑‑ A person is said to make a false document:‑ Firstly. Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or Secondly. Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters, document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly. Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or after a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration." From the examination of the aforesaid provisions of law, it is very much clear that giving false information and entry thereof does not amount to making a false document within the meaning of forgery as defined in section 463 and punishable under section 468, P.P.C. From what has been said above, the appeals are accepted and the appellants are acquitted of the charges. S.A. Appeals accepted.