MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, which convicted the appellant under sections 420 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for using a forged matriculation certificate to secure employment as an O.T. Teacher. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the conviction and the appropriate quantum of sentence given the appellant's circumstances. The trial court had found that the appellant failed to produce the original certificate or credible evidence of its authenticity, relying instead on a photocopy of a Gazette Notification. Upon appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but exercised judicial discretion regarding the sentencing. Considering that the appellant had already suffered the rigours of a prolonged trial, had lost his employment, and was a first-time offender, the Court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for both counts to six months, while maintaining the fines imposed. The principle laid down is that in cases involving document forgery for employment, while the conviction remains valid upon failure to prove authenticity, the court may exercise leniency in sentencing where the accused is a first-time offender and has already faced significant hardship.
- Does the failure of an accused to produce an original document in a forgery case justify a conviction under sections 420 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on the appellant's status as a first-time offender and the hardship of the trial process?
- Is a conviction for forgery under section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable if the act of forgery occurred prior to the employment application?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 5-5-1998 handed down by Mr. Javed Iqbal Siddiqui, Special Judge Anti-- Corruption, Lahore Camp, Kasur, who while discharging the appellant under section 468, P.P.C. Convicted him under section 420, P.P.C. And sentenced him to R.I. For a period of two years with a fine of Rs.5,000 or in lieu thereof to suffer R.I. For a period of two months. On the second count, he was convicted under section 471, P.P.C. And was sentenced to six months' R.I. With a fine of Rs.1,000 or in lieu thereof he was to suffer further R.I. For a period of 15 days.
The sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The matter pertains to case F.I.R. No.88, dated 18-2-1993 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. At Police Station, A Division, Kasur.
3. Precisely the allegation against the appellant is that after fabricating the; matriculation certificate, he got employment an O.T. Teacher. The matter was inquired into and later on it was discovered that the matriculation certificate had been forged. Eight prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case.
4. In defence the appellant took the plea of innocence and stated that the complainant Muhammad Rashid was personally against hint and had made out this case against him.
5. It appears that the appellant was allowed opportunities to produce the original matriculation certificate but he did pot tender the same in evidence. He also did not produce any evidence in defence other than appearing himself in his own defence.
6. The learned trial Court brushed aside the argument that the certificate furnished by the appellant for employment called for verification of the Board of Intermediate ante Secondary Education concerned by stating that he was merely relying on Photostat copy of Gazette Notification and reflecting his detailed marks without' producing its original. Whereas he also failed in producing the original matriculation certificate which ought to have been in his possession.
7. The offence under section 468. P.P.C. Was not made because the forgery has taken place prior to his getting the employment.
8. At the time of the announcement or the judgment, the appellant absented himself and a perpetual warrant of arrest was issues against him while later he came in appeal against such an order.
9. Initially when the appeal was filed, the orders of this Court were that memorandum of appeal be returned to the appellant because he had not surrendered but it appears that he did surrender before this Court subsequently alongwith his counsel as is evident from the order sheet or 14-1- 2003.
10. After advancing arguments, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the sentence be reduced to one already undergone because the appellant was any way seeking an employment on the basis or this certificate and did not heat any private person in any other manner. That the appellant had even lost his employment on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint. That he was a previous non-convict and deserved leniency. That he was not able to defend his case properly before the trial Court.
11. The State does not oppose this request while keeping in view the rigours of trial already suffered by the appellant.
12. Under the circumstances, the sentence in both the counts is reduced to six months R.I. Each while the sentence of fine is maintained. In case the appellant has already suffered incarceration for this period then he shall not have to suffer any further imprisonment. Otherwise he shall be taken into custody for undergoing the sentence reduced by this Court. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly--
13. A copy of this order be immediately sent to the Special Judge Anti-Corruption. Lahore for information and such necessary action as may be required.