Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1985, heard on 25th March, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 468 & 420‑‑Forgery‑‑Cheating‑‑School leaving certificate proved to be not a genuine document; that false and fictitious entries were made therein‑‑Accused filing such forged certificate alongwith his application for recruitment‑‑No direct evidence of any forgery by accused and also of cheating someone by him forthcoming‑‑Conviction under Ss. 468 & 420, P.P.C. set aside in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 471‑‑Using forged document‑‑Accused using fictitious certificate knowing same was forged one‑‑Conviction under S. 471, P.P.C. maintained.

‑‑‑S. 471‑‑Sentence‑‑Accused remaining in Jail for 15 days after his conviction‑‑Losing job and suffering agony of trial‑‑Remaining sentence of 21 months' R.I. altered to fine of Rs.700.‑‑[Sentence].

Agha Taj Muhammad for Appellant.

Faizur Rehman for the State.

Date of hearing: 25th March, 1985.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Gujranwala, at Lahore whereby he on 3‑2‑1985 convicted Kifayat Hussain appellant under section 468/471/420, P.P.C. and sentenced him to three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.300, in default thereof to further R.I. for one month on each of the three counts.

2. The charge against the appellant was that he forged certificate Exh. P.B. showing him to have passed 8th class from the Government High School, Qila Mian Singh, District Gujranwala and then used the same to obtain job in the Police Department. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. Muhammad Ramzan P.W.1 stated that on a letter issued by the Officer Incharge P.R.T.C. Choorkana that Kifayat Hussain had failed in the written test, he (the witness) wrote letter to the Headmaster, Government High School, Qila Mian Singh who replied that certificate Exh. P.B. relatable to the appellant was a forged document so he made complaint Exh. P.N. Nisar Ahmed Headmaster P.W.2 stated that Kifayat Hussain appellant was studying in 7th class when he left school on 31‑10‑1978. School certificate was issued to him on 14‑9‑1981 and that the original was Exh. P.D. He further stated that certificate P.B. was a forged document as it contained fictitious entries. Imtiaz Ahmed A.S.I. P.W.3 had partly investigated the case. Ejaz Hussain A.S.I. P.W. 4 had drawn up formal F.I.R. Exh. P.F./1.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr. P.C. the appellant denied that document Exh. P.B. was copy of school leaving certificate produced by him at the time of his recruitment as a constable. He appeared as witness and stated that document Exh. P.B. was not the correct copy of the school leaving certificate which was produced by him alongwith application before the Superintendent Police. The learned Court examined Muhammad Rafiq, Senior Clerk as C.W. 1. He stated that the appellant' had moved application Exh. P.G. for his recruitment in the Police Department alongwith photostat copy of Exh. P.B. of his school leaving certificate.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that there is no evidence of any forgery by the appellant; that the ingredients of offence of cheating punishable under section 420, P.P.C. have not been made out and that the Senior Teacher who allegedly had issued certificate Exh. P.B having not been examined; it cannot be said with certainty that the document Exh. P.B copy whereof Exh. P.B/1 attached with the application moved by the appellant before the Superintendent Police, was a false or fictitious document. 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 feel persuaded to partly agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. 1 find that from the statement of Nisar Ahmed Headmaster P.W.2 and Muhammad Rafiq, Senior Clerk C.W. 1, it stands proved that the document Exh. P.B., copy whereof is Exh. P.B/1 was not a genuine document; that false and fictitious entries were made therein and that alongwith his application for recruitment as foot constable; the appellant had attached fictitious certificate. Since there is no direct evidence of any forgery by the appellant and also of cheating someone by him, therefore his conviction under section 468/420, P.P.C. cannot be sustained. As for his conviction under section 471, P.P.C. I find that from the statements of the Headmaster and the Court witness who are quite independent witnesses and having stood the test of cross‑examination have inspired confidence in my mind. It stands proved that the appellant had used Exh. P.B/1 knowing that the same was forged one and as such no exception can be taken to his conviction under section 471, P.P.C.

This brings me to the question of sentence. The learned counsel for the appellant has requested for leniency. I find that the appellant was sentenced to R.I. for three months; and that he remained for 15 days in the jail after his conviction; that he has lost his job and that he has suffered agony of trial. It would meet the ends of justice if the remaining sentence of imprisonment is altered to a fine of Rs.700 in default thereof to further R.I. for 2 months. The fine of Rs.300 and the sentence in default thereof awarded by the trial Court is maintained. The appellant shall deposit Rs.1,000 with the trial Court within two weeks, failing which the trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest and detention.

M.A. K.

Appeal partly 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.