' QALADNAR ALI KHAN, J.- Zubair Sharif, appellant, has lodged this appeal against the judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar, dated 17-3-2014, whereby, he was convicted and sentenced as under:--
(a) under section 468, P.P.C., Two years' R.I with a fine of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) or in default of paym ent of fine to undergo S.I for Six months.
(b) under section 466, P.P.C., Five years' R.L with a fine of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) or in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I for Six months.
(c) under section 472, P.P.C., Five years' R.I. With a fine of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) or in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I for Six months.
(d) under section 5(2) P.C. Act, Two years' R.I. With a fine of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) or in default of paym ent of fine to undergo S I for Six months.
2. The appellant has impugned judgment of the learned trial court, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned trial court ignored material contradictions in the prosecution evidence which cast serious aspersion on the veracity of the prosecution case; that the impugned order of the trial court was based on misappreciation of evidence therefore unwarranted; that on the basis of same evidence and facts co-accused namely Kala Khan, Ghulam Ali, Zameer Hussain, Nadeem Ahmad and Adnan Pervez were acquitted by the trial court vide the impugned judgment and therefore under the principal of consistency the present accused/petitioner is to be acquitted; and that the prosecution had failed to bring home charge against the appellant.
3. The name of the appellant figured in case FIR No.16 dated 17-12-2012 under sections 161/165/409/419/420/465/466/468 and 472, P.P.C. Read with Section 5(2) PC Act registered at Police Station ACE, Peshawar, with the charge that he along with other co-accused officers/officials of the higher Education Department (IIED) abused their official position and received illegal gratification from the candidates for their appointment, but, subsequently, to stop the process of recruitment prepared a fake and forged Writ Petition No.84-P/2012 along with fraudulent stay order of the Peshawar High Court Peshawar to avoid political pressure and return of the illegal gratification.
3(sic). After trial of the appellant and other 5 co-accused, the learned Special Judge Anti- Corruption Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, (Provincial Peshawar) found the appellant guilty of the offences under sections 466/468 and 472, P. P.0 . Read with Section 5(2) PC Act, and, while convicting him under the aforesaid sections of law, sentenced him to the aforementioned punishment. The appellant was, however, found not guilty of the offences under sections 409/419/420/465/165 and 161, P.P.C., hence acquitted of the said offences. The learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, vide his impugned judgment dated 13-3-2014, however, acquitted co-accused Kala Khan, Ghulam Nabi, Zameer Hussain,. Nadeem Ahmad and Adnan Pervez, while extending them the benefit of doubt.
4. On the appraisal of evidence in the case, the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption found the appellant guilty of the charge of forgery of record of court (under section 466, P.P.C.), forgery for purpose of cheating (under section 468, P.P.C.), and making/possessing counterfeit seal with intent to commit forgery (under section 472, P.P.C.), and criminal misconduct (under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947). The-conclusion so arrived at by the learned trial court is, mainly, based on the statement of. Jehangir Khan (P.W.5) who stated in his statement before the court that; "the accused came along with another person and told me that the person who was accompanied wanted to make/prepare High Court Stamps. On my demand the said person produced photo copy of the .Authority letter. Accused Zubair handed over me the USB in which the sample of stamp was available and I accordingly prepared the High Court stamps. My statement was recorded by the magistrate. Today 1. Have seen my statement which is correct and correctly bears my signature."
5. It may be added here that nothing detrimental to the prosecution case was brought on record from the statement of this independent witness despite lengthy cross-examination; besides, nothing has been shown that he nursed grudge or ill-will against the appellant. His testimony is, undoubtedly, coherent and confidence inspiring, and was, therefore, correctly relied upon by the learned trial court for conviction and sentence of the appellant.
6. Having said that, one cannot find himself in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court with regard to the motorcar and cash amount of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs), which were declared ill-gotten amount/purchased with ill-gotten amount; as no evidence has been adduced to show nexus between the so-called ill-gotten amount and purchase of motorcar and cash amount of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs). The acquittal of the co-accused also, charged for receiving illegal gratification and conviction of the appellant under section of law relating to forgery would further lend support to the fact that there was no evidence to prove receipt of illegal gratification against the appellant. In the absence of evidence to prove receipt of illegal gratification, it would not be appropriate to hold that the motorcar was purchased with ill-gotten amount/money and the cash amount of Rs.2,00,000 was, in fact, ill-gotten amount/money.
7. While finding no merit in the appeal of the appellant against his conviction and sentence in the case, his appeal is dismissed. However, in view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment/order to the extent of confiscation of the motorcar and cash amount of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) is set aside. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.