MURAD BUKHSH Versus State

ABDUL QADIR MENGAL, J.--- This Criminal Revision Petition has been directed against the judgment dated 21-7-2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalat, whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalat, upheld the judgment dated 24-6-2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate/FCM, Surab, through which, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 465, P.P.C. for one (1) year's R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand). In default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for three (3) months. The benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. also has been extended in favour of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the petition as has been narrated in the F.I.R., were that, on 1-6-2008, the S.I/S.H.O. Ghulam Sarwar, lodged F.I.R. No.18 of 2008, with Police Station, Surab District Kalat, for offence under sections 465, 468 and 485, P.P.C., stating therein that, on 3-12-2007, Ex-S.H.O. Abdul Qudoos, raided and recovered a Land Cruiser No.BC-6570, in which four persons were present. Initially, they fired upon police party, however, they were apprehended and on search of the vehicle, 23 bottles of liquor were recovered. The two (2) separate cases, F.I.R. Nos.95 of 2007 and 99 of 2007, were lodged against the culprits. During the investigation, the present petitioner has shown himself the owner and driver of the Land Cruiser. The number of Land Cruiser was sent for verification to CPLC, Karachi. The report of the same received, which shows that, the number-plate was on the name of one, Anzal Nawab. Whereupon, the instant case F.I.R. No.18 of 2008 was registered against the petitioner, and the petitioner was challaned before the Judicial Magistrate. The learned trial Court, on conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned hereinabove, against which, the appeal was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalat, same was also dismissed, as such, the present petition.

3. I have heard Barrister Muhammad Amir Lehri, for the petitioner, while Mr. Liaquat Ali Advocate was heard for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that, the both Courts i.e. the trial Court and as well as the Appellate Court, have failed to appreciate the evidence and thereby, passed erroneous judgments, contrary to the provisions of law. Admittedly, the evidence, which has come on record, speaks only about the possession of any number-plate, but not possession of any vehicle. Both the Courts below have convicted and sentenced the petitioner on the basis of a number-plate, while there is nothing on record that, the said number-plate was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Again, the elements or ingredients of section 465, P.P.C. are missing in the present case, as such, no case has made out against the petitioner under section 465, P.P.C. Thus, no any offence has committed, falling under section 465, P.P.C., on this ground, both the judgments are illegal, as such, requires to be set side. Learned counsel further argued that, the Land Cruiser was not belonged to the petitioner nor any number-plate has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, but on account of non-reading or misreading of the evidence, a wrong conclusion has been drawn and petitioner was wrongly convicted for the alleged offence.

5. Mr. Liaquat Ali, Advocate, appearing for the State, strenuously opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that, the petitioner along with three other co-accused was arrested in case F.I.R. No.99 of 2007, where in that case, his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he had claimed the ownership of the vehicle No.BC-6570 to him. As such, on the basis of the forged Plate No.BC-6570, the present case was lodged against the petitioner after verification. So being, it means that, the number-plate was forged and the petitioner knowingly affixed the same on his own Land Cruiser, therefore, the both Courts rightly have convicted the petitioner in the present matter.

6. After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that, there is a great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, there is no any evidence on record, to make out any case for forgery, to which, the petitioner has been held responsible. The forgery as has been defined under section 463, P.P.C. shows; "whoever makes any false document or part of a document, with intent to cause damage or injury, or support a claim or title or to cause any possession to part with property, or to enter into any expressed or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery".

7. Here in the present case, it is stated that, a Land Cruiser was recovered from the possession of the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.99 of 2007, in which, he had shown himself the owner of the Land Cruiser and on investigation, it has been found that, the number-plate of the same was not genuine. However, there is no witness or nothing is on record that forged number-plate BC-6570 was prepared by the accused himself with intention to support a claim or title over the Land Cruiser. Prima facie it appears that respondent/ accused wrongly has been charged under section 465, P.P.C. instead of section 471, P.P.C., which is about using as genuine a forged document, knowing it as same is forged document.

8. However, while considering the evidence, it appears that the complainant Ghulam Sarwar, himself has admitted that, he himself has not seen or recovered the Land Cruiser or number plate of the Land Cruiser from the possession of the petitioner. According to him, his predecessor about six months back, had written to the CPLC to present report about its genuinity, as such, the CPLC has reported that, on the said number, a vehicle of one Anzal Nawab is running, as such, after receiving the report, he lodged the instant case against the petitioner. The next important witness of the case is the recovery witness, Muneer Ahmed P.W.2. He has stated that, on 1-6-2008, one Land Cruiser No.BC-6570, S.I. Abdul Qadir had taken into possession in presence of him and Muhammad Younas and he prepared the recovery memos, which bears his signature. The statement of this witness does not show that, from whom, the alleged Land Cruiser bearing No.BC-6570 was recovered or taken into possession. The last witness of the case, is the Investigating Officer Abdul Qadir, he has stated that, the investigation of this matter entrusted to him by the S.H.O. Ghulam Sarwar, he took into possession of number-plate of the vehicle bearing No.BC-6570, registered the case against the petitioner and on completion of the investigation, challaned the matter. Thus, considering the above evidence, it appears that, there is no any iota of the evidence, on record to establish a case against the petitioner, falling under section 465, P.P.C. or section 471, P.P.C., so that the respondent/accused could be held guilty of the alleged offences.

Thus, the above all facts, shows the gross illegality and miscarriage of justice, by passing the impugned judgments in the arbitrary manner, therefore, the both judgments dated 24-6-2009 and 21-7-2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Surab and the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalat, are set aside and the petitioner is released forthwith, provided if not required in any other case.

N.H.Q./108/Q Revision petition accepted.