ABDUL RAHIM vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for possessing a forged currency note. The prosecution alleged that the appellant attempted to use a forged Rs. 1,000 note at a railway station, relying primarily on a report from the State Bank of Pakistan to establish the forgery. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the forgery of the currency note without examining the bank officials who actually conducted the examination and authored the report. The Court held that the mere production of the bank's report, which was based on the opinion of an unexamined officer, was insufficient to prove the forgery. The Court determined that such a report does not fall under the ambit of Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which would otherwise exempt the author from testifying. Consequently, because the prosecution failed to examine the relevant bank officers to substantiate the forgery, the essential ingredients of the offence were not proven. The Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
- Does a report from the State Bank of Pakistan regarding a forged currency note automatically qualify as admissible evidence without the testimony of the author?
- Does a report declaring a currency note to be forged fall within the ambit of Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the prosecution required to examine the officer who authored a forensic or expert report to prove the forgery of a currency note?
- Section 510, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---It is alleged by the prosecution that on 6-7-1998 at 3 p.m. The appellant produced a currency note of Rs,1000 to P.W. Naseem to purchase cigarettes from the cabin situated at Padidan Railway Station. P.W. Naseem suspected the note to be forged; therefore, he raised cries on which complainant P.C. Muhammad Khan came who took the appellant and note to the police station where he lodged the report. The police sent the said note to State Bank of Pakistan for verification. The Assistant Chief Manager of State Bank of Pakistan sent the report that the note was forged but he based his opinion on the report submitted by another officer viz. Assistant ChiefManager Cash. The prosecution examined four witnesses to prove the above allegation. The witnesses gave the evidence in line of the allegation of the prosecution.
2. ' The main question arises whether or not the note was forged. In this connection the prosecution relied upon the report Exh.7-B of Assistant Chief Manager as mentioned above. However, the prosecution did not examine the said Assistant Chief Manager or S. Masroor Ahmed Assistant Chief Manager Cash who found the note to be forged and report Exh.7-B is based on his examination of note and report. Merelyproduction of report Exh.7-B would not absolve the prosecution from examining the person who issued the document. The Exh.7-B does not come within the ambit of section 510, Cr.P.C. So as to exclude the recording of evidence of the concerned officer whose report is produced in the Court. Therefore, the prosecution was required to examine the officer who had signed the Exh.7-B and the person who had given the report declaring the note to be forged.
3. Without such evidence it cannot be held that the note was forged hence the prosecution has failed to prove the main ingredients of the offence. Finding this defect in the prosecution evidence, the learned Asstt. A.G. Has not supported the case.
4. ' In light of what has been discussed above, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under the impugned judgment are set aside. The appellant is acquitted and set at liberty. He is present on bail, such bonds stand cancelled and surety discharged. The surety papers be returned to the surety after verification and as per rules. The appeal is allowed.