1. Appellant above-named, being aggrieved by judgment dated 30th December, 1976 of the learned Special Judge (Central), Karachi, in Case No 62/74, by which appellant has been convicted under section 471, P. P. C. Read with section 5 (2) of Act 11 of 1947 and sentenced to suffer R. I. For one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer further R. I. For six months, has preferred - the above appeal, on the following facts and grounds :- According to prosecution, co-accused Hassan Zia was Daftari and then be became L. D. C. In Office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sukkur during the period September, 1962. Till end of 1963.
2. In same office co-accused Muhammad Nasim was Lower' Division Clerk from September, 1962 till March, 1967. During this period, P. W. Nazar Abbas was Accountant in said office. An evacuee property No. B/1349, Dhak Road, Sukkur (hereinafter referred to as Case Property) was auctioned on Ist November, 1962 by said office to one Altaf Khan, but the latter failed to pay its price and hence the auction was cancelled and said property was resumed. Subsequently, it was alleged, that co- accused Hassan Zia and Muhammad Nasim fabricated and forged the record maintained in their office for said property and arranged transfer of said property to appellant Abdul Razzak and issued a forged P. T. D. No. 02262 dated 7th June, 1983 in favour of appellant Abdul Razzak. In this P: T. D. Appellant Abdul Razak was said to have been auctioned said property on 23rd November, 1960. Transferee Abdul Razzak was shown to have paid full transfer price of said property. Appellant Abdul Razzak was alleged to have made an application on 12th December, 1967 to the City Surveyor, Sukkur for mutation of said property in his favour on the basis of forged P. T. D. Dated 7th June, 1963. Consequently, said property was mutated in favour of appellant Abdul Razzak on 15th April, 1967 by City Surveyor P. W. Muhammad Bux. On 25th November, 1967, Inspector Abdul Khaliq of P. S. P. E. Received-information, that appellant Abdul Razzak in collusion with Settlement staff had obtained by fraudulent means a P. T. D. In respect of said property. Consequently, Inspector of P. S. P. E. Abdul Khaliq submitted his report to his Deputy S. P. P. S. P. E., Bahawalpur, who registered the case on 29th November, 1967.
3. After registration of the case, Inspector Abdul Khaliq was directed to investigate. He obtained the file concerning said property from office of P. S. C. Sukkur alongwith compensation book of Altaf Khan. He secured application of appellant Abdul Razzak for mutation, from office of City Surveyor, Sukkur and then arrested appellant Abdul Razzak. He obtained the forged P. T. D, alongwith its P. T.
4. O. And the extract from City Survey Record for said property. Specimen writings, signatures and initials of co-accused Hassan Zia were obtained in presence of Magistrate on the Settlement forms.
5. Similar writings, initials and signatures of co---accused Muhammad Nasim were also obtained in presence of another Magistrate. Specimen writings, signatures and initials of U. D. C. Muhammad Rafiq and G. H. Habib, D. S. C. Were also obtained. Routine writings of co-accused Hassan Zia and Muhammad Nasim were also obtained. Routine writings of Clerk Muhammad Rafiq were also obtained. The case was also investigated by Inspector Wazir Muhammad who secured forged pages of Registers C. S. C-IV, C. S. C-V and C. S. C-F.
6. These documents alongwith the documents collected by Inspector Abdul Khaliq were sent by Inspector Wazir Muhammad, to the handwriting expert for examination and report. The case was ultimately given in charge of Inspector Masroor Ahmad, who challaned the appellant after getting the sanction Exh. 48.
7. Statements of accusation Exhs. 4,
5. And 6 were read over and explain--ed to the accused, who pleaded not guilty.
8. Prosecution examined P. Ws. Muhammad Bux Exh. 7, Ghulam Qadir Exh. 11, Nazar Abbas Exh. 15, Muhammad Yousuf Exh. 20, Nek Muhammad Exh. 22, Rana Sirajul Haq Exh. 25, Ahmed Ali Exh. 26 Muhammad Yousuf Exh. 27, Ghulam Dastagir Exh. 40, Mansoor Ahmed Exh. 47, Abdul Khaliq Exh. 49, Wazir Muhammad Exh. 57 and Abdul Majeed Exh.
61. Prosecution was closed under statement Exh.
9. 64.
10. In their statements Exhs. 65, 67 and 69, the appellant and as well as co-accused denied the prosecution allegations about having entered into a criminal conspiracy to forge P. T. D. No. 02262, and the corresponding record of the Settlement Office, Sukkur. Co-accused Hassan Zia and Muhammad Nasim admitted, that they were working in the office of D. S. C., Sukkur from September, 1962. Co-accused Hassan Zia admitted, that he worked there till end of 1963, while co- accused Nasim admitted that he worked there till March, 1967. They, denied, if they were concerned with preparation of transfer deeds. They also denied having forged P. T. D. Exh. 19 and corresponding pages, Exhs. 16 to 18 of Registers C SC-IV, C SC-V and C SC-F respectively. These co-accused denied if they were produced before any Magistrate for their specimen writing, signatures and initials. Co-accused Hassan Zia denied if docu--ments Exhs. 12 to 14 contained his specimen writings, signatures and initials. Co-accused Nasim denied if documents Exhs. 41 to 43 contained his specimen writings, initials and signatures. Co-accused Hassan Zia produced true copy Exh. 66 of a judgment given by learned then Special Judge (Central), Karachi on 12th September, 1974 in Case No. 48.72 (State v. Hassan Zia and another). Co-accused Muhammad Nasim pro--duced a copy Exh. 68 of weekly newspaper "Beedar" dated 2nd November, 1967 containing auction list issued by, the Settlement Depart--ment. In his defence, co-accused Nasim produced true copy Exh. 71 of a P. T. D. Bearing No, 02262 dated .8th June, 1963 in respect of a property situated in Ghotki.
11. Appellant Abdul Razzak denied, if he made application Exh. 9 to the City Surveyor on 12th December, 1967 for mutation of the record in his favour about the case property. He alleged enmity with P. W. Yusuf. No defence was led by him and by co-accused Hassan Zia.
12. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it, convicted and sentenced the above-named as hereinbefore men--tioned and consequently appellant has filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the memo. Of above appeal.
13. The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted as under:-
(a) That appellant's alleged signatures were not sent to Handwriting Expert arid P. W. 1 Muhammad Bux did not support prosecution case, that appellant produced P. T. D. In question before City Surveyor and as such prosecution had failed to establish its case under section 471, P. P. C. Against the appellant.
(b) Statement of P. W. 4 Muhammad Yousuf has not been corrobora--ted by any independent evidence and appellant denied alleged sale, of the house and forgery, but prosecution lead no evidence to prove these allegations.
(c) Registered sale-deed, alleged to be signed by appellant was not sent to Handwriting Expert nor Sub-Registrar was examined to prove, that appellant was in any way responsible for the same.
(d) That conviction of the appellant on the basis of learned trial Court conclusions under section 73 of Evidence Act by itself could not have formed basis of his conviction.
(e) The prosecution in view of above submissions has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, against the appellant.
14. The learned Advocate for the State on the other hand submitted, that appellant by forged P. T. D.
15. And presenting the same for mutation com--mitted offence under section 471, P. P. C. And has been rightly convicted for the same, on the basis of P. Ws. Statements.
16. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through R and P of the learned trial Court, as well as impugned judgment.
17. I have carefully gone through the statements of all P. Ws. Examined by prosecution and found that prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt, that P. T. D. In question and other records of settle--ment department were forged by the above appellant, and consequently learned trial Court also did not convict the appellant on said account.
18. I further find, that prosecution case for appellant having used alleged forged P. T. D. And produced the same before mutation authorities is based on the statement of P. W. 1 Muhammad Bux (Retired City Surveyor). However, I find that this P. W. In his statement before the learned trial Court categorically stated, that appellant was not the person who produced before him Exh. 9, alongwith forged P. T. D. This witness further stated, that he knew one Abdul Razzak son of Shabrati, Petition-- writer, who produced before him Exh. 9 and P. T. D. In question. He further stated that appellant was not said Abdul Razzak and thus fully corroborated statement of appellant under section 342, Cr. P.
19. C.
20. Prosecution has also relied upon statement of P. W. 4 Muhammad Yousuf in support of its case. I have gone through his statement very carefully. His statement does not inspire confidence at all.
21. Appellant has also suggested enmity against him and as such his statement required independent corroboration, which is not at all available in present case. Prosecution could have produced Sub- Registrar, as witness to prove that sale-deed in question was in fact executed by the appellant, but prosecu--tion failed to do so.
22. In view of above appraisal of statements of P. W. 1 and P. Ws. By me, I find prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
23. Therefore, I allow the above appeal and set aside conviction of the appellant and sentences awarded to him by impugned judgment and acquit 4 him by giving him benefit of doubt and discharge the bail bonds executed by the appellant in above appeal.