MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs The STATE
The petitioner challenged his conviction for dishonestly preparing false 'abiana' (water rate) documents, which had been upheld by the High Court under Section 218 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the mere preparation of incorrect documents did not constitute an offence under Section 218, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, because the essential ingredient of intending to cause loss or injury to any person was absent. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, finding that the record was false to the petitioner's knowledge and dishonestly prepared. The Court held that by showing individuals as liable for water rates when they were not, or conversely omitting those who were liable, the petitioner's actions caused wrongful loss to some and wrongful gain to others. Consequently, the requisite mens rea for the offence was established. The Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the trial court's finding regarding the dishonest intent was unexceptionable, and dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal.
- Does the mere preparation of false or incorrect documents constitute an offence under Section 218 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the intent to cause wrongful loss or gain a necessary ingredient for a conviction under Section 218 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 218, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The petitioner was tried for dishonestly preparing false "abiana" documents (e. g. Water rate khatauni and cultivation Khasra Shudkars) and was convicted by a learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption by his order dated 22-3-1978 for an offence under section 468, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corrpution Act II of 1947, and sentenced to R.
I. For 1 year and a fine of Rs, 5,000 or in lieu thereof to undergo further imprisonment for nine months.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No, 250 of 1978 which was dismissed by the High Court on 20-2-1980 with this modification that instead of section 468, P. P. C. The conviction was recorded under section 218, P. P. C.
3. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
4. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that mere preparation of false or incorrect documents cannot constitute an offence under section 218, P. P. C., unless it was prepared to cause loss or injury to any person. In the instant case, he submitted, this ingredient of section 218, P. P. C. Was lacking. The contention has no merit. The record involved in this case was incorrect and false to the knowledge of the petitioner, and from that point of view, as held by the learned trial Judge was dishonestly prepared. The obvious effect of that incorrect, false and dishonestly prepared record was that persons who were not owners or in possession of or who had not cultivated, certain field numbers, were shown as liable to pay the abiana for the same and conversely those who were really liable were not so shown. In these circumstances the relevant mens rea clearly existed on the part of the petitioner and the finding of the learned trial Judge that this forgery was committed dishonestly to cause wrongful loss to some and wrongful gain to others is unexceptionable.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.