MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J. (i) Najam Pervaiz Butt, (ii) Muhammad Khalid, (iii) Muhammad Saleem, (iv)
Basharat Ahmad, (v) Farooq Ahmad, (vi) Imtiaz Ahmad, (vii) Muhammad Tariq, (viii) Muhammad Ashraf Naz, (ix)
Jehan Khan, (x) Arshad Mehmood-ul-Hassan, (xi) Muhammad Faheem and (xii) Muhammad Muneer Ahmad Cheema accused/appellants were tried by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, in case F.I.R. No, 49, dated 05.08.2013 (Ex.P A/1 ) under Sections 409/420/468/471/161, P.P.C. read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at Police Station ACE, Sargodha, on the basis of a complaint (Ex.PF) and on conclusion Of trial vide judgment dated 12.12.2017, (i) Farooq Ahmad, (ii) Muhammad Tariq, (iii) Arshad Mehmood- ul-Hassan, (iv) Muhammad Faheem and (v) Muneer Ahmad Cheema, were acquitted, whereas, the rest of the accused/appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:---
(i) NAJAM PERVAIZ BUTT , (ii) IMTIAZ AHMAD, MUHAMMAD KHALID, (iv) SHEIKH MUHAMMAD SALEEM,
(v) BASHARA T AHMAD.
Convicted under Section 409, P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs, 25,00,000/-, each.
Convicted under Section 420, P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of 500,000/-, each, in default thereof to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months, each.
Convicted under Section 468, P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs, 500,000/-, each, in default thereof to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment, each.
Convicted under Section 471, P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs, 500,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months, each.
Convicted under Section 5(2)/47 PCA and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs, 500,000/-, each, in case of default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months, each.
In addition to the above, Basharat accused/appellant was directed to deposit Rs, 22,76,868/- in the official account of District Of ficer Road, Sargodha.
(i) MUHAMMAD ASHRAF NAZ and (ii) JEHAN KHAN Convicted under Section 409, P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each with fine of Rs, 300,000/-, each.
Convicted under Section 420, P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs, 300,000/-, each, in default thereof to further undergo three months simple imprisonment, each.
Convicted under Section 468, P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each with fine of Rs, 300,000/-, each, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months, each.
Convicted under Section 471, P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each with fine of Rs, 300,000/-, each, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months, each.
Convicted under Section 5(2)/47, PCA and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs, 300,000/-, each, in case of default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months, each.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section 382-B, Cr .P.C. was extended.
2. Details of the prosecution case including investigation the prosecution evidence and the stance of the accused/appellants have been given in-depth by the learned Trial Court in its judgment, therefore, the same need not to be reproduced here.
3. I have heard the arguments of learne d counsel for the parties and examined the entire case with their able assistance.
4. As shall be seen from the prosecution case, the allegations levelled against the accused/appellants is that they in connivance with each other prepared forged and fabricated estimates for widening the Urdu Bazar , New Urdu Bazar and Rail Bazar , Roads in Sargodha; while preparing the bills for the payments of the work done to the Contractor , they tempered with the relevant record and also made payments against the approved scope of work and they made fudged payments, thus, caused a loss of Rs, 24,56,564/- to the public exchequer . Considering the nature of allegation, there remains no doubt that the same conveniently could be established through the documentary evidence and as a matter of fact the prosecution got exhibited those documents during the course of trial and the conviction/sentence is also based on such documentary evidence. Before proceeding further in the matter , it may be made clear that mere marking of an exhibit on a document does not dispense with the formal proof thereof. Article 87 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984 is the regulating law in relation to public documents and before placing reliance on any public document, the Court is to see whether the same fulfills the legal requirements to stand the test. On careful perusal of Article 87, ibid, it is deduced that follow ing ingredients must exist in a document so as to consider the same as certified copy of public record:-
(i) Who may issue: A public officer in whose custody public record is kept ordinarily during the cours e of normal work is authorized by law to issue certified copy of public record. Person who does not keep such record in ordinary course of official duty is not authorized by law to issue such certified copy ,
(ii) Payment of legal fee: It is very important part of the issuance of certified copy of public, record that fee has been paid for it before its issuance,
(iii) Issuance on demand: Person who has right to inspect the record may apply for the certified copy of public record. It is not issued without application of its demand,
(iv) Certification on foot of document: At the foot of the copy from public record, officer authorized puts the words "certified to be true copy". Mere photocopy of public record does not form certified copy unless it is specifically certified as provided in law under Article 87 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order ,
(v) Name of issuing authority: Person who is issuing the certificate shall mention his name on certified copy .
(vi) Designation: Authority issuing certified copy shall also provide her designation as to have authority to issue such certified copy ,
(vii) Signature: Officer issuing the certified copy puts his signature below the words "certified to be true copy",
(viii) Date: Date is mentioned on which certified copy is issued, and
(ix) Seal: Certified copy of public record remains incomplete until or unless official seal is not put into it.
Unless all the above ingredients co-exist, said document cannot be said to have been legally exhibited or proved.
Keeping the above legal position in mind, when I see the documents produced by the prosecution in this case, it has been observed by this Court that almost all those exhibited documents only carry the stamp and signatures of Deputy District Officer, without any mention of name and date thereon. Above all, there also does not exist any certificate on the foot of any of those documents to the effect that same was true copy of the original document or part thereof. Although the said legal flaw could have been covered by production of the original record (primary evidence) during the course of trial, but it appears that said exercise was also not carried out by the prosecution in this case. Therefore, the documents which were brought on record without following the requirements of law could neither be exhibited in evidence nor the same could be read against the accused/appellants. Reliance can be placed on the case "Syed Hamid Saeed Kazmi and others v. The State" (2017 P.Cr.L.J. 854) and "Shad Khan v.
The State " (1995 P .Cr.L.J. 275).
5. In view of the above, since all of the documents brought on record by the prosecution do not stand the test of legality , therefore, the same do not in any way advance the case of the prosecution. Therefore, when the main documents are taken out of consideration, merely on the basis of some other documents, neither the conviction could be recorded nor sustained in the eyes of law. There is no cavil to the proposition that for the purposes of recording conviction solid evidence is required and in addition to the above when a charge can be established by documents, but those documents are not brought on record within the contemplation of law, then mere oral evidence will be of no use to the prosecution.
6. For what has been discussed above, it is held that the prosecution failed to bring on record the documents as required by law, in the absence whereof, there remains no evidence whatsoever to establish the charge against the accused/appellants. Consequently , all these seven criminal appeals filed by the convicts/appellants are allowed and their conviction/sentence is set-aside. Since all the accused are already on bail, therefore, they shall stand discharged of the bail bonds. The case property , if any, be disposed of in accordance with law and the record of the learned Trial Court be sent back immediately .