KHALID MEHMOOD Versus STATE
Khalid Mehmood appellant was tried by learned Special Judge Anti -Corruption, Gujranwala, found and adjudged to be guilty of an offence under section 471, P.P.C.; and accordingly convicted and sentenced to R.I. for a term of nine months with fine of Rs.5,000 (five thousands) and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for three months, vide judgment dated 14-10-1993. He was, however, acquitted of the charge under section 468, P.P.C.
2. In nutshell, he is alleged to have secured employment as "Clerk" in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, on the basis of forged Result Card and Matriculation Certificate, photostat copies, whereof, find a mention on file as Exh.PC and Exh.PG respectively.
3. To substantiate the allegation and prove its case as many as six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Muhammad Yousaf (P. W .1) is scribe of F.I.R Exh.PB drawn upon complaint Exh.PA As Investigating Officer Ch. Muhammad Akbar A.S.I. (P.W.4) secured certified copies of result card, letter Exh.PD Certificate Exh.PG, letter Exh. P.E. and admission form vide memo. letter Exh.PH. Papers were duly verified and compared with original by Ch. Qasim Ali, Deputy Controller of Examination, Board of Education, Gujranwala, as P.W. 5 Due sanction for prosecution was accorded by Commissioner, Gujranwala in terms of Exh.PK.
4. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances figuring against him in the prosecution evidence professed innocence and raised the plea of false implication. He, however admitted to have obtained employment on the basis of result card Exh. PC and maintained that he had duly appeared in the examination and passed Matriculation.
5. After passing through usual phases and covering its journey in about two years, trial concluded with following observations and conclusions:--
"Next point to be seen is as to what offence has been committed by the accused. It is not known as to who provided these forged documents to the accused or who prepared the same. There is no evidence that accused himself prepared these documents. However, it is clear from the evidence that accused fraudulently and dishonestly used these forged documents to obtain employment in the Government department and he knew it very well that the documents are forged one. Thus, the offence committed by the accused is covered by section 471, P.P.C."
6. With reference to S.C.6 Indian Cases 776; M.L.T. 428 and Gustad Maneckji Shekdar v. The State (PLD 1959 Dacca 756), learned counsel for appellant has argued with vehemence that photostat copies are neither admissible into evidence nor Exh.PC and Exh.PG fall within the definition of "false document" and conviction based thereon is unsustainable in law. Inter alia, it has been contended that in no way appellant was a "Public Servant" at the relevant time of alleged forgery and as such Anti-Corruption Laws are neither attracted nor can come into play. Also it has been canvassed that non-production of Khalid Mahmood, who, is said to have appeared in examination on the basis of admission form Exh.PF, Hand Writing Expert and submission of report with an inordinate delay of 18 months by the Board speak volumes about hollowness or prosecution Case. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further maintained that due consideration was not given to Exh.DA and the same has not been repelled any way. It has, therefore, been remarked that the judgment, now sought to be impeached and set at naught, runs Counter to Principles of Criminal Justice and thus nullity in the eye of law. reliance has also been placed upon Allah Rakha v. The State (1989 PCr.LJ 1928), Muhammad Akbar Khan Bughti and another v. The State (PLD 1967 Karachi 186), Niaz Muhammad and 2 others v. The State (1974 PCr. LJ 516) and Mushtaq Hussain v. The State (PLD 1975 Lahore 603) in support of the contentions.
7. Conversely, same has been acclaimed to be perfect and correct in all respects
8. Be that as it may, prosecution has successfully brought on record material evidence to establish that the appellants fraudulently and dishonestly used such documents to secure employment as genuine while he knew and had every reason to believe it to be forged. When examined under section 342, A Cr.P.C. the appellant candidly admitted to have produced photostat copy Exh.PC of Result Card and claimed to have obtained employment on the strength of qualification of having passed Matriculation Examination. Such candour admission on the part of appellant and hard fact of having entered into service by tendering Exh.PC as also Exh.PG, be-speak loudly of his mischief and artifice. He knew and rather firmly believed that the document being used to seek employment was not genuine but made his employer believe that the same was not fabricated. Due verification by P.W.5 puts last nail in this context and renders the matter crystal clear. Needless to say that admitted facts need not be proved. In wake thereof pleas advanced on behalf of appellant loose its charm altogether.
9. As a necessary corollary, employment as "Clerk" in the office of 8 Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot was obtained by the appellant knowing fully well that the documents were forged or at least not genuine. In face of clear data and material on record, there can be no escape from such conclusion. In any event, the fact remains that false and fabricated documents were used to get employment by the appellant, who, was, thus, liable under section 471, P.P.C., and rightly convicted thereunder. Same does not appear to suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court.
10 Appeal consequently, merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed
11. As far as, enhancement of punishment is concerned, suffice it so say, that the appellant has not only faced dismissal from service, but also would undergo sentence and suffer punishment awarded to him. Hence matter in this context is dropped and notice issued in terms of order dated 8-11-1993 is discharged. .
12. Necessary, steps for causing arrest of the appellant on bail, in connection with the execution of sentence shall be taken immediately.
N.H.Q/K.37/L Appeal dismissed.