KADIR BUX vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a Senior Clerk, for offenses related to the alleged misappropriation of 200 bags of urea and the subsequent falsification of official records. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established that the appellant had fraudulently tampered with the Daily Balance Sheet to facilitate the alleged misappropriation. The High Court set aside the conviction, finding that the prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence linking the appellant to the alleged forgery or interpolation of the official documents. The court noted that the appellant was merely performing his duties based on the statements received by the office. The court affirmed the principle that criminal liability cannot be established based on mere presumption or suspicion; the prosecution bears the burden of proving the specific act of forgery through concrete evidence, and the absence of such evidence necessitates an acquittal. The Assistant Advocate General’s concession regarding the lack of proof further supported the decision to overturn the lower court's judgment.
- Can a conviction for forgery be sustained in the absence of evidence proving the accused was responsible for the tampering of official records?
- Is an accused person liable for criminal misappropriation based solely on the performance of routine clerical duties when the prosecution fails to prove fraudulent intent?
- Does the concession of the prosecution regarding the absence of evidence necessitate the setting aside of a conviction?
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---Brief facts leading to the' present appeal are that the Inspector Ali Anwar Abbasi, Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of Deputy Director Agricultural Supplies,SASO, Sukkur and Muhammad Iqbal, Regional Accountant, SASO, Sukkur inspected the record of Bulk Depot, Khairpur and other sale points in District Khairpur. During the inspection, they detected a shortfall of 200 bags of Urea in the stock of Sale Point, Khairpur where P.W. Noor Muhammad was working as Storeman Incharge up to 24-3-1976. On receipt of above report, the matter, was reported to the Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Khairpur for registration of the case against officials of SASO at District Khairpur. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the evidence that acquitted accused Hubdar had issued a Issue Order, dated 17-3-1976 Exh.4-B on behalf of DASO, SASO, Khairpur authorizing the Store Keeper Bulk Depot, Khairpur to transfer 200 bags of urea to Sale Point, Khairpur. On the said authority, the appellant Muhammad Bux (now dead) showed the transfer of said bags to Sale Point, Khairpur from the Bulk Depot in his Daily Balance Sheet issued on 17-3-1976 Exh.4-A, it was alleged that the said consignment was not actually transferred to Sale Point where P.W. Noor Muhammad was working as Storeman. It was further alleged that the appellant Qadir Bux who was Incharge of Stock Ledger in the office of DASO, SASO showed the receipt of 200 bags of urea at Sale Point, Khairpur from Bulk Depot, Khairpur on 16-3-1976 and put the signature on the entry. It was further alleged that Daily Balance Sheet (DBS) dated 16-3-1976 issued by P.W. Noor Muhammad did not show that 200 bags were transferred.
2. ' After completing the investigation the appellant, co-accused Hubdar and Muhammad Bux were challaned in the Court.
3. ' The learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sukkur tried, convicted the appellant and Muhammad Bux 1(now dead) for offence punishable under sections 468, 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. For four years and fine of Rs,50,000 or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For six months. Whereas the accused Hubdar was acquitted under the impugned judgment, dated 18-10-1997. Pending adjudication of the appeal, the appellant Muhammad Bux died; therefore, the appeal stood abated against him. The appeal proceeded against the Appellant Qadir Bux.
4. ' The allegation against the appellant Qadir Bux is that he had showed 200 bags as transferred in the Ledger which according to the prosecution was made fraudulently in connivance with the other accused. The evidence has come on the record that the appellant was Senior Clerk and he was required to maintain the Ledger as per Daily Supply Statement received by DASO office. As per his duties, he maintained the Register. The DASO office received DBS Exh.4-C which shows the transfer of 200 bags. The prosecution alleged that there was interpolationin the said statement. Therefore, the prosecution was required to lead evidence to prove that forgery was made by the appellant.
5. There is no evidence led by the prosecution which can suggest, that the appellant was responsible for the forgery. The learned Asstt: A.-G. Has frankly conceded that the required evidence is missing in the case. He has also stated that without such evidence the responsibility cannot be fixed upon the appellant for tampering with the Exh.4-C; therefore, merely on presumption the appellant cannot be convicted.
6. ' After examining the record I fully agree with the learned A.A.-G. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove, from cogent evidence that the appellant had tampered with the record. Thus, the case has not been proved against him.
7. ' Above are the reasons of my short order, dated 29-8-2006 by which I had allowed the appeal in the following manner:-- "Noor Muhammad son of Gul Hassan brother of the appellant Muhammad Bux has sworn affidavit that his brother Muhammad Bux has died on 20-7-2006 in Chandka Medical College, Larkana. He has produced the death Certificate issued by the Nazim of Union Council-1 City Shikarpur. The material placed on record clearly establishes the fact that appellant Muhammad Bux has expired.
8. Therefore, the appeal stands abated against him. The appeal would proceed against the appellant Qadir Bux.
9. ' For reasons to be recorded separately the impugned judgment in respect of appellant Qadir Bux is set aside. The appeal is allowed to the above extent."