Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeals Nos; 83, 84, 85 and 86 of 1978/BWP, decided on 10th June, 1984.

---S. 465--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5--Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 45--Forgery--Except for statement of handwriting expert no reliable evidence available to connect accused with offence- Prosecution failing to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt--Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

---S. 45--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 465--Prevention of Corruption Act (li of 1947), S. 5--Expert evidence, a weak type of evidence--Safe conviction, held, could not be based on uncorroborated testimony of expert witness.

Sardar Ahmad Khan for Appellant.

A.A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 10th June, 1984.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur whereby he, on 25-9-1978 convicted Abdur Rashid appellant under section 465, P.P.C., and section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine .of Rs.500 in default thereof to R.I. for six months on each count.

2. The appellant was posted as Head Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan in the year 1974. The charge against him is that he in collusion with . Sher Muhammad acquitted accused dishonestly issued.Permit No. 237, Exh. P.A. and Permit No. 238, Exh. P. B. in favour of Muhammad Ashiq for the transportation of ten heads of cattle from district Rahimyar Khan to Karachi. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. Muhammad Latif P.W. 1, stated he moved application before the District Md'istrate for issuance of Permit and that he was given Permit Exh. P.A. by some one. He refused to identify the appellant as a person who gave Permit to him. Nazarud Din S.I. P.W. 2 stated that or. 23-5-1974 he received information that some cattle were being transported outside Rahimyar Khan district in contravention of the order promulgated under section 144, Cr.P.C. He went to Railway Station and found 8 heards of cattle loaded in a wagon. Rajab Ali produced Permit before him. He contacted the Deputy Commissioner on telephone who informed him that no such Permits were issued from his office. Dur Muhammad retired Superintendent of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan stated that he-' joined investigation. Permits Exh. P.A. and Exh. P.B. were shown to him by Ch. Ahmad Hassan Inspector whereon he got the record checked from the General Branch and found that the Permits were bogus. He also identified signatures Exh. P.A. /1 and Exh. P.B. /.1 on the Permits Exh. P.A. and Exh. P.B. to be of the appellant. Ch. Ahmad Hassan P.W. 4 investigated the case, recorded formal F.I.R. He obtained specimen signatures and routine signatures Exh. P.F., P.F./1, P. F./2 and P.F. /3 in the presence of a Magistrate. Muhammad Mansha Goods Clerk P.W. 5 stated that on 22-5-1974 he received Permits Exh. P.A. and Exh. P.B. from Muhammad Latif and Muhammad Ashiq respectively and prepared Railway Receipts Exh. P.A./2 and Exh. P.B./2. Nazir Ahmad Magistrate P.W. 6 stated that specimen signatures of the appellant were obtained by the Police in his presence. Muhammad Yaqoob Butt handwriting expert was examined as C.W. 1. He stated routine signatures were in the hand of the person who had signed Permits Exhs. P.A. and P. B.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C., the appellant denied the incriminating circumstances. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that except for the statement of the handwriting expert there is no other oral/ documentary/circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of offences punishable under section 465, P.P.C., and section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the evidence of handwriting expert being a weak type of evidence, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Conversely the learned A.A. -G. supported the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the handwring expert has fully implicated the appellant.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that except for the statement of Handwriting Expert, there is no reliable evidence to connect the appellant with the offence with which he has been charged and that it is by now settled that safe conviction cannot be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an expert witness which is certainly a weak type of evidence. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail. He stands discharged of bail bonds-

M. Y. H. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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