MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE

These two Criminal Appeals Nos. 229 of 1985 by Muhammad Ashraf and 234 of 1985 by Najeeb Ullah and the connected Criminal Revision No. 222 of 1985 by Muhammad Khan for the enhancement of the sentence arise from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Divisions with Headquarters at Sargodha whereby he on 25-3-1985 convicted Muhammad Ashraf and Najeeb Ullah appellants under section 468/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to one month's R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000 each, in default thereof five months' S.I. I propose to dispose of these two Criminal Appeals, and the connected revision with single judgment.

2. Najeeb Ullah was a Patwari, Chak No. 145/R.B. Faisalabad, Muhammad Ashraf is a private person. The charge against them was that they in prosecution of their common intention forged Khasra Girdawari Exh. P. H. pertaining to the Rabi 1980. They denied the charge and claim to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses. Rehmat Ali Shah P.W. 1 was Naib-Tehsildar. He had conducted departmental inquiry into the allegations of forgery of Khasra Girdawari against Najeeb Ullah appellant. Nisar Ahmad, Naib-Tehsildar P.W. 4 had also conducted inquiry against Najeeb Ullah and had submitted his report. The report Ext. P. H . shows that the allegations stood proved against Najeeb Ullah. Ashiq Hussain P.W. 7 is the son of Muhammad Khan complainant. He stated that he examined the revenue record on 30-10-1982, and found that the entries therein had been tampered with and Muhammad Ashraf appellant had been entered as tenant in occupation of the land. Muhammad Khan complainant appeared as P.W.

8. He supported the allegations against appellants.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellants denied all incriminating circumstances. They raised the plea of false implication. In defence two witnesses namely Muhammad Hussain and Manzoor Ahmad have been produced.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no evidence of forgery by Najeeb Ullah or Muhammad Ashraf appellants that the report of the handwriting expert does not support the prosecution case and that the reports of the two Naib-Tehsildars relied upon by the learned trial Court, are not admissible in evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court. Mian Ghulam Rasool, the learned counsel for the petitioner in connected revision has maintained that prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the appellants inasmuch as there are two reports given by Rehmat Ali, Naib-Tehsilder P.W. 1 and Nisar Ahmad Naib-Tehsildar P.W. 4 which shows that the allegations against Najeeb Ullah were very much correct.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that there is no direct evidence of forgery of Khasra Girdawari by the two appellants; that the report of the handwriting expert Exh. P.O. does not support the prosecution case; that no forgery was committed in the presence of two Naib Tehsildars; that Nisar Ahmad P.W. 4 stated that he had not taken the sample of the handwriting of Najeeb Ullah nor did he record the statement of any witness. No doubt Muhammad Ashraf was the beneficiary and this may create suspicion against him but suspicions after all are suspicions and do not take place of legal proof.

7. For what has been found above, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. They are accordingly acquitted of the charge. Resultantly Revision fails.

H.B.T.

Appeals accepted.