MUMTAZ vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 473 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after invoking Section 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established that the seals recovered from the appellant's seal-making shop were forged. The Sindh High Court held that since the appellant was a lawful seal-maker, the prosecution was legally bound to prove the forgery of the recovered seals by sending them to the concerned departments for verification, which was not done in this case. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that in prosecutions involving forged seals recovered from a person whose trade is making seals, affirmative expert or departmental evidence proving the forgery of the specific items is indispensable to sustain a conviction.
- Whether the prosecution must prove that seals recovered from a person engaged in the legitimate business of making seals are forged?
- Can a conviction under Section 473 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained without sending the recovered seals to the concerned department for verification?
- Does the failure to prove the forgery of recovered seals through departmental evidence warrant an acquittal?
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 472, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 236, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 473, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.~-On 9-1-1996 the trial Court framed the charge against the appellant for offence punishable under sections 467, 471, 472 and 420, P.P.C. On the allegation that on 9-8- 1995 at 4-00 p.m. The police raided the shop of the appellant who was doing the business of making seals, secured some domicile certificates and seals from the shop. After trial, the learned Judge acquitted the appellant from the offences mentioned in the charge but by invoking the provisions of section 236, Cr.P.C. Convicted the appellant for offence punishable under section 473, P.P.C., sentenced him to suffer R.I. For two years and fine of Rs,5,000 with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. ' No doubt the prosecution had produced 29 seals before the trial Court which were allegedly secured from the shop of the appellant. Admittedly the appellant is doing the business of making seals; therefore, in such circumstances, the prosecution was required to prove that the seals secured from the shop of the appellant were forged. That aspect of the case can only be proved by sending the seals secured from the shop of the appellant to the concerned department enquiring from them as to whether or not the seals belonged to the said departments are forged. There is no evidence available on the record to prove that the seals were sent to concerned department to establish the fact that the seals secured from the shop of the appellant belonged to them and forged. Without such evidence, the offence punishable under section 473, P.P.C. Cannot be made out. Finding these defects in the prosecution evidence, the learned Asstt. A.-G. Has not supported the impugned judgment.
3. Consequently, 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.