Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 1980, heard on 12th December, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss.471 & 420‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑West Pakistan Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964‑‑Forgery‑‑Accused getting service as Octroi Clerk by forging date of birth in Matriculation certificate‑‑Mere fact that no age limit was prescribed under Octroi Rules, 1964, for recruitment, held, would not make much difference‑ Conviction and sentence maintained in circumstances.

Ch. Bashir Hassan Khalid for Appellant.

Yasin Qazi for the State.

Dates of hearing: 1^st October; 11th and 12th December, 1984

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sahiwal whereby he on 9‑11‑1980 convicted Abdul Latif appellant under section 471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under section 420, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000 in default thereof six months' R.I. on each count with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The appellant was an Octroi Clerk. The charge against him was that he obtained service by changing his date of birth from 9‑9‑1937 to 9‑9‑1941 in his matriculation certificate and thereby derived wrongful gain of about Rs.12,000. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Taj Muhammad P.W.1 produced personal file Exh. P.B, service book Exh. P.D. and inquiry file Exh. P.E. before the Investigating Officer. Khawaja Safdar Rashid P.W.2 deposed that because of revision of pay scales in the month of January, 1975 a Matriculate Clerk was given a higher scale. The witness also stated that all Octroi Clerks were asked to produce original Matric certificate. The appellant however, produced photostat copy Exh. P.F. He filed affidavit Exh. P.G. to the effect that the original Matric certificate had been lost. The witness stated that he suspected some foul game so he approached Registrar University Punjab, Lahore who vide letter Exh. P.J. informed that the date of birth of the appellant given in photostat copy Exh. P.F. was not correct and the date of his birth was in fact 9‑9‑1937. In cross‑examination the witness stated that before the year 1964 a non‑Matric candidate could be appointed as Octroi Clerk. Abdul Aziz P.W.3 was Administrator Municipal Committee. He stated that the inquiry was conducted by Chief Officer who had submitted report Exh. P.E.1. The witness had sent report Exh. P.M. to the Anti‑Corruption Establishment for the registration of the case. Muhammad Bashir an Assistant of the Examination Department of Punjab University, Lahore P.W.4 deposed that according to the original record and the admission form for Matric examination, the date of birth of the appellant was 9‑9‑1937. Khurshid Ahmad Circle Officer, Anti‑Corruption P.W.5 partly investigated the case. Muhammad Ashiq Sikhera P.W.6 had recorded F.I.R. Exh. P.M/A. Aman Ullah Khan P.W.7 partly investigated the case. He took into possession record of Municipal Committee.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. His plea was that photostat copy Exh. P.F. was tampered with. The appellant owned affidavit P.G. and certified copy of his Matric certificate Exh. P.K. According to the appellant he was involved at the instance of Khawaja Safdar Rashid P.W. because some news were published against the integrity of Khawaja Safdar Rashid resulting in his transfer and that he suspected that the appellant had hand in the matter. In defence he produced two witnesses. Sher Ali Khan Head Clerk D.W.1 deposed that since 7‑11‑1969 maximum age for recruitment of Municipal Committee Employees was 25 years and prior to that no age limit had been fixed. He produced copies D.W.1/A and B of the rules. Taj Muhammad D.W.2 was education clerk. He stated that Khawaja Safdar Rashid P.W.2 had taken away personal file, service book and duplicate Matric Certificate of the appellant alongwith other files on 12‑6‑1976 which were returned on 12‑3‑1977.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since there was no age limit at the time of the recruitment of the appellant, therefore, there was no necessity to alter the date of birth; that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable; that the appellant was involved falsely at the instance of Khawaja Safdar Rashid P.W.2 and that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that from the oral, circumstantial and documentary evidence on record it is fully proved that the appellant and none else had changed the date of birth in the Matric certificate. The prosecution witnesses are quite independent. They had no serious enmity with the appellant to involve him falsely in the case. The witnesses have stood the test of cross examination. I do not see any inherent infirmity in their statements. From the documents detailed in the judgment it is very much proved that the date of birth of the appellant was 9‑9‑1937 and not 9‑9‑1941 as shown by him. His plea that the date of his birth was changed by someone, appears to be ridiculous in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Since I am convinced that the entries in the Matriculation certificate were forged by the appellant, therefore, the mere fact that no age limit was prescribed under Octroi Rules, 1964 would not make much difference. For all‑these reasons I am convinced that there is no force in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and that the trial Court has rightly convicted him. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut prosecution case and its evidence. The sentence awarded to him is also not excessive.

7. For what has been stated above, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall surrender himself before the trial Court. The trial Court shall also issue warrants for his arrest and detention.

M.A.K. Appeal 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.