FAZAL KARIM vs MUHAMMAD KHALIL and another
This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kharian, District Gujrat, whereby respondent No.1 was acquitted under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondent at a premature stage when incriminatory material was allegedly available on record. The Lahore High Court held that while the respondent made efforts to obtain and scribe stamp papers for affidavits, preparation for an offence does not constitute an offence, there was no material proving the respondent committed the forgery or used forged documents, he was not the beneficiary, and the forensic report did not link him to the thumb impressions. Furthermore, considering his advanced age and the suffering already endured, the court found no ground for interference and summarily dismissed the appeal under section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that mere preparation for an offence does not constitute an offence, and an acquittal at a premature stage under section 249-A is maintainable where essential ingredients of the alleged forgery and use of forged documents are lacking in the evidence.
- Does mere preparation for an offence constitute a punishable offence under criminal law?
- Whether an accused can be convicted for forgery without evidence linking him directly to the execution of the forged document?
- Is an appellate court justified in interfering with an order of acquittal under section 249-A Cr.P.C. when the essential ingredients of the charged offences are missing from the record?
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 421, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---The record of the learned trial Court as well as of the investigating agency has already been received and the same has been perused.
2. Through this appeal the appellant-complainant has called in question the order, dated 8-12- 2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kharian, District Gujrat whereby, upon acceptance of his application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Respondent No.1 was acquitted in case F.I.R. No. 150 registered at Police Station Kakrali, District Gujrat on 1-6-2000 for offences under sections 420/467/468/471, P.P.C.
3. In support of this appeal it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that sufficient incriminatory material was available on the record of investigation prima facie establishing culpability of respondent No.1 and, therefore, the learned trial Court was not justified in acquitting the said respondent at a premature stage.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the record of this case with his assistance it has been observed that the allegation against respondent No.1 was that he had forged affidavits of five prosecution witnesses in a murder case and on the basis of such forged affidavits the accused persons in the said murder case were opined by the Investigating Officer to be innocent. It may be true that during the investigation some material had become available on the record showing that respondent No.1 had made some efforts to obtain stamp- papers and to get the said stamp-papers scribed for the purposes of preparing affidavits but at the same time it is equally true that there is no material available on the record to even seriously allege that it was respondent No.1 himself who had either committed the alleged forgery or had used any forged document. It is not denied that respondent No.1 A was not the beneficiary of the alleged forgery. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the thumb-impressions available on the relevant affidavits being forged was legally inconsequential against respondent No.1 inasmuch as the said report had not established that it was respondent No.1 and none else who had placed the relevant thumb-impressions on the affidavits. The criminal case in hand had originated in the year, 2000 and respondent No.1 had been acquitted by the learned trial Court in the year, 2001. At the time of his acquittal respondent No.1 was about seventy years of age. About three more years have already gone by ever since. After registration of the above mentioned criminal case respondent No.1 has been in and out of jail and apparently he has already suffered enough for the alleged preparation having made by him for procuring the relevant affidavits. It goes without saying that preparation for an offence by itself does not constitute any offence at all.
5. For what has been discussed above no occasion has been found by me for interference with the impugned acquittal of respondent No.1 C and, therefore, this appeal is hereby summarily dismissed under section 421, Cr.P.C.