Faiz Muhammad filed this appeal against the judgment of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan, dated 27th May, 1967, whereby he was convicted under section 465, P. P. C. And sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Khan, Superintendent Police, Rahimyar Khan, informed Circle Officer, Anti- Corruption Establishment, Licence Clerk (appellant) of this office, in league with Muhammad Iqbal (co-accused) and Muhammad Yasin, Transport Clerk had issued forged driving licences for ulterior motive. The Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption, was asked to take up the investigation. On preliminary inquiry, it was found that two forged driving licences bearing Nos. 9064/05 dated 18th March, 1964 in the name of Amir Nawaz and 8764/65 dated 8th September, 1964 in the name of Muhammad Ramzan had been issued. A case was registered on 24th December, 1964, under sections 161, 420, 468, P. P. C. And section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, The appellant and Muhammad Iqbal were challaned after investigation.
3. The prosecution examined six witnesses, Malik Muhammad Usman, Inspector C. I. A. Rahimyar Khan (P. W. 1) stated that he was authorised by the Superintendent of Police to issue driving licences. During the investigation of the case he was shown driving licence, issued in the name of Amir Nawaz. But the said licence did not bear his signature. Muhammad Nazir, Head Constable, S. P.'s Officer (P. W. 2), deposed that Faiz Muhammad accused was employed in S. P.'s office as Assistant Licence Clerk and thus he was familiar with his handwriting. He further stated that driving licence Exh. P. A. Issued in favour of Amir Nawaz on 18 March, 1964 contained entries at Exhs. P. A./I and P. A./2 in the handwrit--ing of the appellant. He went on to say that the licence register did not contain entry in respect of licence Exh. P. A. The evidence of Abdullah P. W. 3 is not material for theth purpose of the decision of this appeal be--cause according to him Muhammad Iqbal had received illegal gratification for the issue of licence. He did not utter a single word against appellant. The specimen writing of the appellant was taken down in the presence of Mr. Abdul Majid Jamil P. W. 4, Mr. Yaqub Butt, Handwriting Expert P. W. 5 Muhammad stated that licence Exh. P. A. In the name of Amir Nawaz was sent to him for comparison with the specimen handwriting of Faiz Muhammad appellant and in his opinion the name and particulars of Amir Nawaz were written by the appellant.
Ch. Rahim Bakhsh, Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Rahimyar Khan (P. W. 6) got the present case registered and challaned the appellant after completing the investigation.
4. The appellant was examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. He denied the prosecution allegation that he had forged driving licence Exh. P. A. He, however, admitted that he was posted as Assistant Licence Clerk in the Office of the S. P., Rahimyar Khan from 15th April, 1964 to December, 1964. When asked to explain as to why the case has been made out against him, he stated that Nazir (P. W. 1) had a quarrel with him and for that reason he was involved in the case. He produced four witnesses in defence. Siraj Ahmad, Moharrir Head Constable, Police Lines Rahimyar Khan (D. W. 1) stated that Faiz Muhammad accused took over as Assistant Licence Clerk in the Police Office, Rahimyar Khan on 15th April, 1964. Allah Bachaya (D. W. 2) stated that on 1st April, 1964, the appellant was appointed as Licence Clerk. Yar Muhammad, Head Constable (D. W. 3) stated that the appellant was posted as his Assistant in the Clothing Godown of Police Lines, Rahimyar Khan and he could recognize his handwriting. He further stated that licence Exh. P. A. Was not in the handwriting of the appellant. Mr. Zaka A. Malik, Handwriting Expert (D. W. 4), opined that driving licence Exh. P. A. Was not in the handwriting of the appellant.
The learned Special Judge relying on the statement of Muhammad Nazir (P. W. 2) and Muhammad Yaqub Butt (P. W. 5) convicted the appellant. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if the prosecution evidence was to be believed, no offence under section 465 had been committed as the driving licence had not been forged with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Special Judge did not appreciate the evidence properly and had ignored the defence evidence without sufficient reason.
I cannot agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that present case was not covered under the definition of forgery contained in section 468, P. P. C. It is laid down under the said provision of law that whoever makes any false document to support any claim or title commits forgery. In the present case, driving licence Exh. P. A. Had been forged to support the claim of title. Hence a forgery had been com--mitted in the instant case. The next question for determination is as to whether there was sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of the appel-- lant beyond doubt. Abdullah P. W. Had levelled serious allegations against Muhammad Iqbal and according to his statement Muhammad Iqbal had received illegal gratification for the issue of licence but he was acquitted. On the prosecution side Muhammad Nazir (P. W. 2) and Muhammad Yaqub Butt (P. W. 5) stated that licence Exh. P. A. Was not in the hand--writing of the appellant while on the other hand Yar Muhammad (D. W. 3) and Mr. Zaka A. Malik (D. W. 4) stated that licence Exh. P. A. Was not in the handwriting of the appellant. Nobody saw the present appellant forging the licence. In view of the statements of Yar Muhammad (D. W. 3) and Mr. Zaka A. Malik Handwriting Expert (D. W. 4), it cannot be said with certainty that licence Exh. F. A. Was in the handwriting of the appellant.
5. The learned Special Judge imported his personal opinion and cam to the conclusion that the opinion given by Muhammad Yaqub Butt was sound and more reliable but he did not give any reason in coming to that conclusion. It was not the correct approach. The prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond doubt. I accept this appeal, set aside judgment of the learned Special Judge and acquit the appellant of the charge under section 465, P. P. C. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged of his bail bonds.