MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE

JUDGMENT .

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore Camp at Sialkot, where!); he on 25-6-1985 convicted Muhammad Sharif appellant under section 468, P.P.C. on the charge of having forged licence Exh. P.5 and sentenced him to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default thereof to further R.I. f6r three months.

2. The appellant was Head Constable in the office of the Licensing Authority, Sialkot. The charge against him was that he while working as head constable, Licensing official in the year, 1978, in the office of the Superintendent of Police. Sialkot, being a public servant by abusing his official position issued license No. 21798/ST of 1978 in the name of Muhammad Iqbal and procured fictitious stamp and also issued licenses bearing serial Nos. 20758 to 20763 without the genuine signatures of the Licensing Authority and thus committed crime under sections 468, P.P.C. and 471. P.P.C. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The learned trial Court examined Mirza Muhammad Ali, S.P. as C.W.1.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he did not produce any evidence. The trial Court convicted him under section 468, P . P . C . for forging signature of Licensing Authority on licence P.5.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no evidence that the appellant forged signatures of the S.P. on the licence Exh. P.5. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to point out any evidence to the effect that the appellant had forged the signatures of the Superintendent Police on licence P.5.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that although the prosecution has successfully proved that signatures of Mirza Muhammad Ali, S.P. on licence were bogus and fictitious and trot in the hand of the S.P. yet it has hopelessly failed to prove that bogus signatures were prepared by the appellant and none-else. No one saw the appellant signing licence P.5 or putting thereon bogus signatures of the S.P. The prosecution did not care to produce persons conversant with the handwriting of the appellant to prove that the signatures of the Superintendent Police on Exh. P.5 were in the hand of appellant. The prosecution also did not obtain the specimen signatures of the appellant and compare the same with alleged forged signatures on Exh. P.5 to prove that the fictitious signatures of Mirza Muhammad Ali, S.P. C.W.1 were in the handwriting of the appellant. The testimony of P.W.1, C.W.1 and evidence of Miss Pervez Malik handwriting expert P.W.10 and report P.W.1011 do not relate to the signature of S.P. i.e. Licensing Authority. The mere fact that entries in Licence i.e encircled by handwriting expert are in the hand of appellant does not establish that signature of S.P. on Exh. P.5 were forged by the appellant .

7. For what has been found above, giving him the benefit of doubt,) the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released fothwith if not required to be detained in any other case.

H.A.K. Appeal accepted.