Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Petitioner

THE STATE‑Responden

t

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 113 of 1980, decided on 31st May, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 20‑2‑1980 in Cr. A. 250/78).

Penal Cole (XLV of 1860)‑

---S. 218‑Preparation of incorrect record by public servant showing person not liable to pay abiana as liable to pay and omitting names of persons liable to pay same‑Relevant mens rea clearly existing on part of petitioner‑Finding of trial Judge as to forgery being committed dishonestly to cause wrongful loss to some and wrongful gain to others, held, unexceptional.

Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State

Date of hearing: 31st May, 1980.

The petitioner was tried for dishonestly preparing false "abiana" documents (e. g. water rate khatauni and cultivation Khasra Shudkars) and was convicted by a learned Special Judge Anti -Corruption by his order dated 22‑3‑1978 for an offence under section 468, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corrpution Act II of 1947, and sentenced to R. I. for 1 year and a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in lieu thereof to undergo further imprisonment for nine months.

2. The petitioner filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 1978, which was dismissed by the High Court on 20‑2‑1980 with this modification that instead of section 468, P. P. C. the conviction was recorded under section 218, P. P. C.

3. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

4. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that mere preparation of false or incorrect documents cannot constitute an offence under section 218, P. P. C., unless it was prepared to cause loss or injury to any person. In the instant case, he submitted, this ingredient of section 218, P. P. C. was lacking. The contention has no merit. The record involved in this case was incorrect and false to the knowledge of the petitioner, and from that point of view, as held by the learned trial Judge was dishonestly prepared. The obvious effect of that incorrect, false and dishonestly prepared record was that persons who were not owners or in possession of or who had not cultivated, certain field numbers, were shown as liable to pay the abiana for the same and conversely those who were really liable were not so shown. In these circumstances the relevant mens rea clearly existed on the part of the petitioner and the finding of the learned trial Judge that this forgery was committed dishonestly to cause wrongful loss to some and wrongful gain to others is unexceptionable.

5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.