This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 15-0-1982 convicted Allah Rakha appellant under section 420/468/471, P.P.C.
And section 5 of the P.C.A. 1947 and sentenced him to two years' R.I. Under each section and a fine of Rs.22,500 in default thereof six months' R.I.
2. The appellant was a canal Patwari. The charges against him, were that he prepared forged certificate showing himself to have passed the Patwari examination and dishonestly produced that certificate as genuine in the office of XEN Distribution Division, Scarp No. IV, Lahore and on the basis of this forged certificate, he obtained the post of canal Patwari on 3-6-1975 and thereafter he worked as Patwari while he was not qualified to work there and drew a total salary of Rs.22,507.08 for the period from 4-6-1975 to 6-2-1981 and in this manner defrauded the Government of that amount and made unlawful gain to that extent for himself. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced nine witnesses. Shahadat Ali P.W.1 stated that the appellant had confessed before him that even though he had not passed the Patwari course yet he had secured the post of canal Patwari and that he had shown his residence in Chak No.1 district Sheikhupure wrongly. Abdul Latif Head Clerk Tube-well Operation Division P.W.2 produced photostat copy Exh.P.2/A of canal Patwari Examination Certificate of the appellant, office copy Exh.P.W.2/B, dated 3-6-1975 of the order of appointment of the appellant and photostat copy of Exh.P.W.2/C of the statement showing the particulars of the Patwari candidates and the recommendations of the appointing Committee wherein the name of the appellant exist at S. No. 6. Maqbool Ahmed P.W.3 accounts clerk proved statement of Exh.P.3/A of the pay drawn by the appellant from 4-6-1975 to 30-9-1979 and from 1-10-1979 to 6-2-1981. This statement shows that the appellant had drawn Rs.22,507.08 as his salary for this period. Abdul Aleem P.W.4 produced the service record of the appellant before the police. Muhammad Ibrahim P.W. 5 stated that Muhammad Rashid P.W. Had produced attested copy Exh.P.W.5/A of the list of the candidates of Patwari examination declared successful. Muhammad Sharif P.W.6 stated that the accused in is application for the issuance of domicile certificate had shown his residence in Chak No.1 Tehsil Nankana, District Sheikhupura.
Muhammad, Head Clerk, Faisalabad, Irrigation Division P.W. 9 produced in the Court the original statement of successful candidates in canal Patwari examination. He stated that copy Exh. P.W.5/A was the correct copy of the original statement. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He produced three witnesses in defence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant was not a public servant when he allegedly prepared the false certificate and used it as genuine, therefore, he could not have been tried by the learned Senior Special Judge Anti-Corruption. As for the conviction of the appellant under section 420, P.P.C., the learned counsel submitted that there was no evidence of cheating against him. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that so far as the allegation of the commission of offence punishable under sections 420/468 and 471, P.P.C. Are concerned, there is evidence of extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before Shahadat Ali P.W.1. He stated that 3/4 years back, the appellant met him by chance and on enquiry told him that although he had not passed the Patwari examination yet he had secured the post of Patwari irrigation. The evidence of extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It is not believable that the appellant would have confessed his guilt before Shahadat Ali P.W.1 who met him by chance. This evidence is also not corroborated in material particulars. Furthermore the appellant was not a public servant when he allegedly prepared the forged certificate. There is no evidence of any cheating by the appellant. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
For what has been said above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charges.