Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 1981, decided on 1st October, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 420, 468 & 471‑‑Accused allegedly forging official document and thereby depriving pecuniary advantage‑‑Accused, who was Line Superintendent (WAPDA), while preparing estimates and signing test reports of contractor had acted in discharge of his official duty‑ Prosecution failing to prove collusion between Line Superintendent and applicants for electric connection‑‑Commission of offence punishable under, Ss. 471 & 420 P.P.C. against accused, held, not proved‑‑Accused

Mian Muzaffar Ahmad and Abdul Majid Sheikh for Appellant.

Sh. Amjad Hussain for the State.

Date of hearing: 1st October, 1985.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Central Lahore whereby he on 13‑12‑1981 convicted Muhammad Ibrahim Bhatti appellant under section 471/420, P.P.C. and sentenced him as under:‑

(1) Under section 471, P.P.C. to one year's R.I.

(2) Under section 420, P.P.C. to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.15,000 in default thereof 6 months' R.I.

It was directed that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The appellant was a Line Superintendent posted at Pasrur. The charge against him was that he forged official document and thereby deprived pecuniary advantage of Rs.11,725. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. The facts leading to the charge against the appellant briefly are that M. Rasheed P.W. 3 moved application EXh.P.W.3/1 for the sanction of tubewell connection. One Inayat also moved application Exh.P.W.5/1 for industrial connection for some machines. Those applications were sent to the appellant by Sh. Nabiullah S.D.O. P.W.5 for preparing the estimate. The appellant prepared the estimate P.W.1/1. It was on the strength of this document that sanction was accorded. Consequently demand notice was issued to Mr. Rasheed P.W. 3. The appellant also prepared estimate relatable to the machines which is EXh.P.W.l/4. This estimate was also accepted and demand notice was sent to Inayat.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined 7 witnesses, when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. In defence he did not produce any witness. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations accepted at its face value,' no case of cheating and using of a forged document is made out against the appellant. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported.

5. I have considered the arguments address by the learned counsel for the parties. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that since the petitioner was a Line Superintendent, therefore, the applications were sent to him in the ordinary course of business and while preparing the estimates and signing the test reports of the Contractor, he was acting in discharge of his official duty and that prosecution has failed to prove his collusion between with Inayat. There is nothing on the record that the appellant induced any one to deliver anything to him. For all these reasons I am convinced that prosecution has not been able to prove the commission of offences punishable under sections 471 and 420, P.P.C. against the appellant.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that there being no satisfactory basis to uphold the conviction and while giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant acquitted of the charges.

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.