' Through the instant constitutional petition filed in terms of Article 199 of he Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner seeks suspension of his sentence and admitting him to bail pending disposal of his main criminal appeal.
2. Having been involved in NAB reference No.58/2008, the petitioner was tried by learned Judge, Accountability Court No.IV, Lahore, who vide judgment dated 30-8-2013, convicted the petitioner under section 10(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 read with schedule thereto and sentenced him to five years' R.I. With fine of Rs.10,00,000 and in case of default in payment thereof to further undergo R.I. For six months' S.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended in his favour.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while addressing the Court submits that the impugned judgment has been passed by the learned trial court in utter disregard to the material available on record. It is argued that the petitioner was charge-sheeted in the instant case on 11-5-2009 and subsequently the prosecution adduced as many as nine prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner that he prepared forged documents including the Agri Passbook, average sale certificate and recommended loan for Rs.3 millions could not be substantiated by the prosecution during trial. Adds that at the time of final adjudication of the case, the learned trial court has observed that handwriting seems to be of the petitioner, but the same cannot be made basis for conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the cases of "Khan Muhammad v. The State" (1974 PCr.LJ Note 15), "Tanveer Jamshed and another v. Raja Ghulam Haider" (1986 CLC 456) and Dr. Major Abdul Ahad Khan through his Legal Representatives v. Muhammad lqbal (PLD 1989 Karachi 102) submits that comparison of signatures by the learned trial court would be dangerous without aid of an expert. In such circumstances, it is contended that as the petitioner has been convicted on the basis of wrong premises, therefore, he is entitled to the relief prayed for by means of instant petition.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor-General NAB vehemently opposes this petition.
It is argued that the petitioner is the person who prepared the forged documents. It is contended that the petitioner was taken into custody at the time of pronouncement of judgment and prior to that he remained on bail. When confronted, learned Law Officer frankly conceded that no report of the Handwriting Expert to establish forgery committed by the petitioner has been procured by the prosecution.
5. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record available on file.
6. There is no second cavil to this pre-position that there is specie..., allegation against the petitioner that he along with his co accused prepared forged documents including the Agri Passbook, average sale certificate, khasra gardawri and encumbrance certificate etc, but it is admitted fact that the prosecution has failed to procure the report of Handwriting Expert to establish forgery at the part of the petitioner. The comparison/observation of the learned trial Court cannot be made basis for passing conviction against a person, which even otherwise would be dangerous without aid of an expert and conviction based on such comparison would be unjustified. Reliance in this regard is placed on the dictum of law laid down in a reported case 1984 PCr.LJ 1320 (Muhammad Anwar v. The State), wherein it has been held as under:-- ' S. 5(2)---Conviction of accused mainly based on comparison made by trial Court of writings and signatures on alleged forged document Held, reliance on comparison of signatures would be dangerous without aid of an expert and conviction based on such comparison would be unsafe Prosecution having not been able to prove case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence set aside".
' The petitioner remained on bail even during the course of trial and the appeal is continuation of the trial.
7. For the foregoing reasons this Court is persuaded to allow this petition as a consequence whereof sentence inflicted upon the petitioner by the learned trial Court is hereby suspended and he is admitted to bail pending disposal of his main criminal appeal subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.