RIAZUL HAQUE Versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-CORRUPTION, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA AND OTHERS-RESPONDENTS

The petitioner was selected as Naib‑Tehsildar by the Commissioner Sargodha Division by his decision dated 17th April, 1961. He worked as Naib‑Tehsildar till the end of 1969 when he resigned from the post.

2. One Mr. Mahboob‑uz‑Zaman made an application to the appoint ing authority of the petitioner when the petitioner was still in service that he was a corrupt Officer and that he had obtained the appointment to the post of Naib‑Tehsildar on the strength of a forged Matriculation certificate. This forgery was committed in order to change his date of birth making himself eligible for appointment in Government service. Preliminary enquiry was held and the allegations against the petitioner on the charge of corrup tion were found to be prima facie baseless but in respect of Matriculation certificate the case was got registered under section 420/468, P.P.C. against the petitioner with the Anti‑Corruption Department on 20th January, 1971. The petitioner was admitted to bail on 16th April, 1972, and the challan was submitted by the Anti‑Corruption Department in the Court of Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Rawalpindi on 4th September, 1973. The petitioner was summoned by the Court for facing trial for 12th December, 1973. The petitioner submitted an application on 17th January 1974, that he had not committed the offence of forgery during the course of his service. The application was allowed and the Special Judge Anti‑Corruption ordered the transfer of his case and submitted the file to Senior Special Judge for transmission to the District Magistrate for trial by the ordinary Court. The Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha accordingly sent the case to A.D.C. (G), Sargodha by his order dated 4th June, 1974. The A.D.C. (G), Sargodha was denuded of powers of Special Judge and the case was sent back to the Special Judge Anti‑Corruption by the A.D.C. (G) on 26th September, 1977. Again the petitioner got the case transferred from the Special Judge Anti‑Corruption to the A.D.C (G), Sargodha on 21st February, 1978. The A.D.C. (G) again transferred the case to the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption on 8th March, 1978. The petitioner once again moved an application before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption on 20th April, 1978 for transfer of the case to the ordinary Court. This application was dismissed on 20th April, 1978. The learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption Sargodha Division, Sargodha assumed jurisdiction for proceeding with the case and now, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate‑General that most or the evidence of the prosecution .has been recorded by the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption Sargodha Division, Sargodha in the case of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition with the prayer that the proceedings in trial before the Special age, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha Division Sargodha be declared to be without lawful authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the forgery of Matricula tion certificate. was done before the petitioner was inducted into service he could not be tried by the Special Judge Anti‑Corruption. But the Anti -Corruption Department has submitted the challan to the Special Judge; Anti‑Corruption on the ground that the offence of forgery was not complete with the fabrication of Matriculation certificate as at that time it was only an attempt to commit fraud and forgery because the document was not yet used for any purpose. The document in fact was used for obtaining the appointment to the post of Naib‑Tehsildar and the petitioner continued to enjoy the benefit of the document during the course of his appointment throughout. Thus the offence was complete during the tenure of post and the case of the petitioner was rightly submitted to the Court of Special Judge Anti‑Corruption for trial who has taken the cognizance and recorded most of the evidence in the trial. The view taken by the police and the learned Judge Anti‑Corruption is not incorrect. It was the certificate on the basis of which the petitioner became eligible to enter into Government service and continued to enjoy the right and privilege of the post with the qualification possessed on the strength or the forged Matriculation certificate. The contention of the learned counsel in the circumstances of the case is not correct and he has not been able to cite any reference in support of his contention. Logically speaking it was the Matriculation certificate which clothed him with the qualification to remain in Government service and the offence was complete during the tenure of office. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed: