MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ Versus THE STATE

This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No.388 directed against the judgment dated 26‑6‑1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption Gujranwala, whereby he convicted the appellants of both the appeal, under sections 468/471/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to six months' R.I. with a fine of Rs.5,000 each under section 468/34, P.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for 3 months each with fine of Rs.2,000 each under section 471/34, P.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the present case as narrated by the complainant III the F.I.R. are that Middle Standard Examination of the Directorate of Education, Gujranwala was held on 7‑2‑1994 and the result was declared on 31‑3‑1994. Muhammad Younas Khawaja was then posted Deputy District Education Officer and he received complaints regarding the result and he called the attested copies of the results from all the Middle Schools. The accused Muhammad Mushtaq was posted as Headmaster. Government Middle School, Narowal and accused Hamid Mahmood was a teacher in the school. During scrutiny, it was discovered that under the signatures of accused Muhammad Mushtaq, forged School Leaving Certificates were issued in the name of four students for having passed Middle School Examination and in fact those students had failed in the examination and on the strength of certificates those students had obtained admissions in the ninth class of Government Muslim High School, Narowal. It was also discovered that as per rules the case of the four students was also sent by Government Muslim High School Narowal to the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Examination Gujranwala for registration so that those students can appear in the Matric Examination of the Board. The names of these persons to whom the certificates were issued are Ghulam Hussain, Ghulam Mustafa. Muhammad Waqas and Mushtaq Ahmad who on verification were found to hive been failed in the Middle School Examination and School Leaving Certificates issued by the accused Muhammad Mushtaq showing these persons having passed the Middle School Examination were false and bogus. In this regard complaint Exh.P.A. was sent to D.S.P Narowal.

3. After receiving complaint Exh.P.A. the police completed all the necessary formalities and thereafter conducted investigation thoroughly in this case and then challaned the accused and sent them to judicial lock up to face the trial.

4. Prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 9 witnesses while Ghulam Rasool, Aftab Ahmad and Rashid Ahmad P.Ws. were given up by the A.D.(P.) being unnecessary. Thereafter, statement of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for Muhammad Mushtaq Qureshi, appellant submits that he was falsely implicated in this case, that before registration of the instant F.I.R., he had written a letter to Muhammad Younas complainant P. W.4 in this case, that unfortunately he had signed these forged certificates which were blank regarding Ghulam Hussain, Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Waqas and Muhammad Mushtaq and he had not committed any fraud. Learned counsel submits that the mistake on the part of the present appellant Mushtaq was bona fide one, that even otherwise the four students who got admission their names were struck off later on, on the asking of the appellant when the Headmaster of the school was informed accordingly by the appellant before the registration of the case. Learned counsel further submits that the occurrence had taken place in 1994 and now it is end of 2002. Appellant has already undergone the agony of trial and his appeal is pending before this Court for the last 5‑1/2 years.

6. Learned counsel for Hamid Mahmood appellant also adopts the same arguments but adds that what Hamid Mahmood appellant had done that was done under the coercion (influence) of Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Aslam teacher of that School and said Hamid Mahmood appellant had admitted that he had prepared those bogus certificates on the asking of the above said two persons. Learned counsel submits that the statement of the appellant Hamid Mahmood under section 342. Cr.P.C. should be accepted in totality.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that in the instant case there was no question of coercion as submitted by Hamid Mahmood in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. for the reason that the appellant could have informed his Headmaster in this regard immediately. He further submits that the Handwriting Expert has also appeared before the learned trial Court alongwith his report and it was found that the signatures of the appellants were on the bogus certificates. He submits that already a very lenient view has been taken by the learned trial Court and no case for interference is made out regarding conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case the allegations against the present appellants were that they had issued four bogus certificates in favour of Muhammad Mushtaq, Ghulam Hussain, Ghulam Mustafa and Muhammad Waqas students to the effect that they had passed their Middle School Examination from the Education Department. It has not been denied by both the appellants before tile learned trial Court that the signatures and writing on these documents i.e. bogus certificates were of both the appellants but the stand taken by Mushtaq Qureshi, Headmaster was that he had signed blank papers regarding the above said four students while the stand of Hamid Mahmood was that he had prepared these four bogus certificates on the asking of Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Aslam teachers of his school.

9. First I will deal with the contention of Muhammad Mushtaq who was headmaster of that school. I have gone through Exh.D. A. in which it has been admitted by Mushtaq Ahmad, appellant that he had informed Muhammad Younas Khawaja, P.W.4 (Director Education) that he had signed this bogus certificate. There is no mention of the fact that these four bogus certificates were signed while those were blank and because same is contradicted by the stand taken by Hamid Mehmood appellant in his reply to question No.3 in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. i.e. that he had completed and filed these bogus certificates on the asking of Muhammad Akram Randhawa and Muhammad Aslam teachers. The defence of both the appellants is totally unbelievable and afterthought. They both belonged to very noble profession i.e. teaching The people send their children to them for learning and if they themselves are involved in such like offences then what can be expected from them that what education they would impart to their students, that the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case except Muhammad Younas Khawaja who had given some concession in his examination‑in‑chief. He should have been declared hostile by the P.P. but he did not perform his duty diligently and efficiently. In this case he was either inefficient or dishonest. The beneficiaries in this case were four students whose names have been mentioned above, they should also have been arrested by the Investigating Officer in this case but for the reasons best known to him, he did not arrest them in this case due to some ulterior motive. As far as signatures on Exh.D.A. to the effect that same were received on 19‑6‑1994 and was sent by appellant Muhammad Mushtaq Qureshi, is concerned; none of the witness had stated before the learned trial Court that he had signed that paper on its receipt and those were his signatures.

10. As far as D.W.1 Lal Din is concerned, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration for the reason that he never joined the investigation. If he thought that the letter Exh.D.A. was genuinely sent by Mushtaq Qureshi appellant before the registration of the F.I.R. and the same was received also by him, he could have informed the Investigating Officer. He had admitted to cross‑examination that he was friend of the appellant so no reliance can be placed on his testimony.

11. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going, through the record available on the file, I am fully convinced and there is no hesitation in my mind that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. As far as Humid Mahmood appellant is concerned, he has undergone 12 days imprisonment during the trial. The case relates to 1994 and now we are going in 2002. I do not, feel it proper at this stage to send him behind the bars. The sentence which he has already undergone is treated to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. However, as far as sentence of fine is concerned that is maintained. He will deposit the same before the relevant authority within one month from today failing which he shall be sent to jail to serve out the sentence in lieu of non‑payment of fine.

12. As far as Muhammad Mushtaq appellant is concerned, he is present in Court he seems to be an old man but fortunately he did not go to jail even for a single day. His sentence is reduced from the sentence which he was awarded by the learned trial Court, to 12 days which his co‑accused/appellant Hamid Mahmood had undergone. As far as sentence of fine and in default thereof is concerned, that is maintained. If he deposits the, same within one month, well and good and if he fails to deposit the same then he shall have to undergo sentence in lieu of that tine. With these observations both the appeals are disposed of.

N.H.Q./M‑1661/L Sentence reduced.