1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that on 24-7-1996 the appellant Shahbazdino produced an affidavit along with a solvency certificate for furnishing surety for accused Jamil, who was granted bail by the IInd Judicial Magistrate, Sukkur. The appellant produced the said documents before P.W.1 Farid Ahmed, Reader of the said Magistrate. The P.W.1 produced the documents before the Magistrate who suspected that the solvency certificate was forged; therefore, he ordered for its verification from the concerned Mukhtiarkar. The said solvency certificate was sent to Mukhtiarkar for verification and report who reported that solvency certificate was forged as it was not issued from his office. On the receipt of such report (sic).
2. ' The police after usual investigation challaned the appellant and co-accused Jamil in the Court.
3. ' The learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur tried the appellant and co-accused Jamil, convicted the appellant under section 471, P.P.C. And sentenced him to suffer R.I. For one year and fine of Rs,2,000 or in default thereof to suffer S.I. For one month with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
4. Whereas co-accused Jamil was acquitted under the impugned judgment dated 20-6-1998.
5. ' I have heard the Advocate for the appellant, Assistant Advocate General for the State and perused the record of this case very carefully.
6. ' In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 Farid Ahmed who gave same details of the incident as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment; therefore, need not be repeated. He specifically stated that the appellant was the person who produced the said certificate. P.W.2 Mushtaque Ahmed who was serving in the office of Mukhtiarkar, his evidence reveals that after checking the stamp on the solvency certificate he reported to the Mukhtiarkar that the stamp was forged. The evidence of P.W.3, PC, Muhammad Salim reveals that the appellant was arrested in his presence. The evidence of P.W.4, Manzoor Ali, IInd Judicial Magistrate, Sukkur reveals that the office had produced the affidavit of the appellant along with solvency certificate which he found to be forged; therefore, he sent the same to the Mukhtiarkar for verification who reported that the solvency certificate was forged; therefore, such report was sent to the S.H.O. For registration of the case. The evidence of P.W.5 Shafique Ahmed, Second Munshi of the office of Mukhtiarkar reveals that after verification of the said solvency certificate he submitted the report to the Mukhtiarkar that the said certificate was forged. The evidence of P.W.6, Mubarak Ali, Advocate reveals that he identified the appellant through his National Identity Card. The National Identity Card of the appellant was produced in evidence. The number mentioned on it is the same as shown in the affidavit.
7. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was not the person who had submitted the affidavit before the P.W.1. The said argument has no force in view of the statement of P.W.6 and P.,W. 1 as according to P.W.6, he identified the appellant through his National Identity Card, whereas according to P.W.1 the appellant was the person who produced the affidavit before him. The evidence of P.W.6, SIP, Ghulam Muhammad reveals that he conducted the investigation of the case and gave the details of the investigation. The evidence oaf P. W.7, Zahoordin Shah, Mukhtiarkar and FCM, Rohri reveals that he received the solvency certificate for verification from the Court of IInd Judicial Magistrate and on verification of the record, he found that the solvency certificate was forged and he sent such report.
8. 'From the above evidence it has been established beyond any shadow of doubt that the appellant had produced the solvency certificate which is the subject matter of the appeal, which was found to be forged as per statement of P.W.7, Mukhtiarkar and FCM. All the witnesses were subjected to cross-examination but nothing came on the record to discredit their evidence. I do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence. The appellant did not take any defence nor lead any evidence to disprove the charge.
9. ' From the evidence on the record an offence punishable under section 471, P.P.C., has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt and that the appellant has committed the said offence; therefore, he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. The said conviction and sentence are maintained.
10. ' Above are the reasons of my short order dated 18-8-2006 by which I had dismissed the appeal and remanded the appellant to judicial custody to serve out the sentence.