Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 3-P of 1981, decided on 15th March, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court, Peshawar, dated 4-2-1981, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 1980).

Ss.468 & 471-Forgery-Appreciation of evidence-Documents presented before Excise authorities for completing transfer of truck (jointly owned by complainants and accused petitioner) never thumb- marked by petitioner nor complainants executing any power of attorney in favour of petitioner for acting on -her behalf-Such story of prosecution believed by both lower Courts and defence plea rejected Case of petitioner as put to complainant during her cross-examination: that she bore enmity to petitioner, hence, implicated him falsely Suggested enmity being fairly serious and extending over period of time not possible to accept complainant having given her power of attorney to her enemy-Alleged power of attorney also not shown to complainant while giving her statement in Court and under cross- examination and complainant not confronted with its execution through thumb-impressions-Mere fact of such document being registered not necessarily showing complainant herself having appeared before Registrar-Appreciation of evidence by Courts below not suffering from any infirmity, conviction maintained.

Zahoorul Haq, Advocate and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 15th March, 1981.

Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 4-2-1981 of the Peshawar High Court whereby petitioner's appeal from judgment of conviction and sentences for offences under sections 468 and 471, P. P. C. was dismissed the High Court had, however, directed that the substantive sentences on both counts shall run concurrently.

The allegation against the petitioner was that be had fraudulently, through the forgery of relevant documents, sold the share of Mst. Bachazadgai (complainant) in a truck; which was jointly owned by her and the petitioner.

The mainstay of the prosecution was the deposition made by the complainant herself. It was her case that the documents presented before the Excise Authorities for completing the transfer were never thumb-marked by her though they purported to be so thumb-marked nor she further asserted under cross-examination she ever executed any power of attorney in favour of the petitioner-he had relied on a power of attorney alleged to have been executed by the complainant which was also got registered. The complainant had specifically asserted that the documents in question were prepared by the petitioner without her permission and that they were in fact forged documents.

The plea of the petitioner was that although he was authorized to sell the truck under a power of attorney executed by the complainant and he did sell the same by virtue of that authority, be never prepared or forged any document for purpose of selling the truck.

Both the Courts below having rejected the defence plea, gave findings of fact against him.

Learned counsel has contended that the Finger Print Expert having rendered the opinion that the questioned thumb-impressions were not so decipherable as to give any definite opinion the petitioner bad not been linked with the forgery. He has also contended that the petitioner was not interested in presenting the documents in question before the authorities concerned for completing the sale. That being so, learned counsel further contended, the case would not fall within the definitions of forgery and making of a false document as contained in sections 463 and. 464, P. P. C.

The question of law raised by the learned counsel is dependent upon findings on question of fact. Learned counsel has taken us through the relevant material which was before the learned Courts below. It is inter esting to note that the case of the petitioner as put to the complainant during her cross-examination was that she was inimical to him therefore he had been falsely implicated. The suggested enmity was fairly serious and would extend over a period of time. If that were so, it would not be possible to accept that she would have given her power of attorney to her enemy. It is also important to note that the alleged power of attorney was not shown to the witness (complainant) when she was under cross-examination and she was not confronted with its execution through thumb-impressions. Had it been done she might have disclosed further details. The mere fact that it was registered would not necessarily show that the complainant herself had appeared before the Registrar. The general observations made by the learned Courts below in this behalf, with respect it is pointed out, would not weaken the prosecution case.

After hearing the learned counsel, we are satisfied that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Courts below does not suffer from any infirmity. This petition has no force and is accordingly 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.