Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 1979, heard on 28th October, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 468, 471, 109 & 420‑‑Accused allegedly preparing false document‑‑Accused made a report in favour of applicant whose application was marked to accused by his senior officer‑‑Prosecution not proving that said report was made dishonestly or that it was made at instance of applicant‑‑Possibility that report was made honestly, held, could not be excluded in circumstances‑ Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

Mian Bashir Zafar for Appellant.

Mian Ashraf Khan for the State.

Dates of hearing: 14th and 28th October, 1984.

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Additional Special Judge Anti‑Corruption whereby he on 2‑9‑1979 convicted Riaz Ahmad appellant under section 468/471/109, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.4,000 in default thereof one year's R.I.

2. The appellant was posted as clerk in the office of Municipal Committee, Sialkot. The charge against him was that while preparing false document he changed the name of the father of Mst. Kaneez Begum from Noor Din to Siraj Din and as such committed offence punishable under section 468 read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and section 471, P.P.C. He denied charge and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined five witnesses. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced no evidence.

3. Learned counsel contends that since there is nothing on record to show any conspiracy of the appellant with Mst. Kaneez Begum and others, therefore, it cannot be said that the document was prepared dishonestly. Conversely learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care and feel persuaded, to agree with learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as I find that Mst. Kaneez Begum submitted application before the Health Officer Municipal Committee, Sialkot for the correction of the name of her father‑in‑law that the Health Officer marked the application to the appellant for report; that on this application the appellant made following report:‑

< --[if gte vml 1]> < [endif]-->

that prosecution has not been able to produce evidence to the effect that this report was made dishonestly or that it was made at the instance of Mst. Kaneez Begum. In the circumstances of the case the possibility that the report was made honestly cannot be excluded.

5. For these reasons, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Giving him the benefit of doubt the appellant is acquitted of the charge.

H.A.K. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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