' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge (Central), Rawalpindi whereby he on 11-1-1983 convicted Ashiq Hussain appellant under section 420, P.P.C. And sentenced him to one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 in default thereof to further R.I. For six months.
2. The appellant was tried alongwith Muhammad Yousaf (acquitted co-accused) under sections 420/467/468/471/419, P.P.C. Read with section 52 of the Post Office Act and section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial Court acquitted the co-accused and convicted the appellant only under section 420, P.P.C.
3. The prosecution case briefly is that Muhammad Yousaf co-accused was a sorter in Railway Mail Service, Wazirabad. Abdul Azeem P.W. Received a letter purporting to have been written by his son namely Muhammad Naeem wherein he asked his father to give 10.3,500 to one Muhammad Arif of Gujranwala. A few days thereafter, Ashiq Hussain appellant posing himself as Muhammad Arif approached Abdul Azeem P.W. And demanded the amount who paid him Rs,3,500. Subsequently when Abdul Azeem informed his son about the payment to Muhammad Arif, the son disowned his letter. After some time Ashig Hussain appellant was arrested in some other case. He was brought by the Police to the house of Abdul Azeem and shown to the complainant, Hidayat Ullah and Saleem Ullah P.Ws. In whose presence, the amount was allegedly obtained by the appellant.
4. To prove its case prosecution examined five witnesses. Abdul Azeem P.W.1 stated that his son Muhammad Naseem was in England. He received a letter purporting to have been written by him wherein it was stated that he should pay Rs,3,500 to Arif Hussain in Pakistan and that after 4/5 days Ashiq Hussain appellant came to him and posing as Arif Hussain demanded Rs,3,500 which were paid to him. Hidayat Ullah P.W.2 and Saleem Ullah P.W.3 supported the statement of Abdul Azeem P.W.1. The rest of the evidence is not of much importance.
5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he did not lead any evidence.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable; that Muhammad Yousaf co-accused having been acquitted, there was no justification for the conviction of the appellant.
Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supproted the judgment of the trial Court.
7 I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that the co-accused Muhammad Yousaf who was sorter in Railway Mail Service and had obviously forged the letter has already been acquitted by the trial Court; that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. And that the possibility of mistake in identification after six months of the occurrence cannot be excluded.
6 ' For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt the appellant is acquitted of the charge.