The appellant in this case was Assistant Superintendent, Irrigation Section, in the office of the Accountant-General, Lahore. He was convicted under section 420/511, P. P. C. And was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.
2. The evidence is that on 11th August 1966, at about 10-00 a.m., he visited the office of the West Pakistan Water and Development Board, Lahore. He introduced himself to Mr. Abdul Latif Mirza, Secretary of the Board, as representative of Light Heart Medical Stores, Lahore. He told the Secretary that he wanted to talk to him in private at some place, where the talk could not be heard by anybody. The Secretary encouraged him to open his mind and the appellant ultimately came out with the statement that he had a friend in the Accountant-General's office with whose help, money which had already been withdrawn, could be redrawn on the basis of a duplicate authority, if the Secretary tried to be helpful. We find from the evidence of Mr. Muhammad Akbar Quraishi (P. W. 3), that the Secretary had told him that the appellant had offered the Secretary 50% share if he agreed to co-operate with him. He produced voucher Exh. P. W. 1/2 for ks. 2,94,550 before the Secretary to prove his earnestness. The Secretary asked him to wait in the room of his P. A. And meanwhile, he called Mr. Saeed Anwar (P. W. 6) the manager of the Branch of the United Bank Limited which functioned in the premises of the Board. I he Manager told him that the amount mentioned in the above voucher bad already been withdrawn. He also told the Secretary that he had seen the appellant in the office of the Accountant-General and himself went to give this information to the office of the Accountant-General. Meanwhile, the Secretary bad also got into touch with Mr. Muhammad Akbar Qureshi, Assistant Accountant-General (P. W. 3) on the telephone and told him that somebody respon--sible may be sent to identify the appellant. Abdur Rehman P.
W. 4) Assistant Accounts Officer came to the office of the Board and identified the appellant as an Assistant Superintendent, who was on short leave. Before the arrival of Abdur Rehman p. W., Mirza Abdul Latif had drafted a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, which is Exh. P. W. 1/3 and forms the basis of the first information report. The police was sent for and the appellant was taken into custody.
3. After the appellant had been taken away by the police, Mirza Abdul Latif was told by his P. A. That while sitting in, his office, the appellant had torn a piece of paper and had thrown the same in the waste paper basket. This paper was taken out arid its pieces were pasted together. It transpired that it was an authority from the Accountant-General to the Treasury Officer, Lahore, to make payment of a sum of Rs. 2,66,600, to the. Board. The police was informed of this development by a separate report Exh. P. W. 1/5. The visiting card Exh. P. W. 1/1, the voucher Exh. P. W. 1/2 and the authority Exh. P. W. 1/4, were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. W. 6/1.
4. Muhammad Hussain (P. W. 2), the orderly of Mirza Abdul Latif testified to the fact that the appellant had visited the office of the Board. Abdur Rehman (P. W. 4), Assistant Accounts Officer and Muhammad Anwar Saeed (P. W. 6) have supported the prosecution story narrated above.
Muhammad Akbar Qureshi (P. W. 3), Assistant Accountant-General con--firmed that the Secretary had spoken to him on the telephone and that he had sent Abdur Rehman P. W. To identify the accused. A separate report regarding the theft of the voucher Exh. P. W. 1/2 was sent to the police, but no action appears to have been taken on i. Mr. Muhammad Akbar Quraishi also stated that the authority Exh. P. W. 1 /4 could be produced and money could be had on that basis, if the Secretary had prepared a voucher like the document Exh. P. W. 1/2. It was explained by this witness that the money was released by the Finance Department and the authority was then issued by the Accountant-General's Office, Lahore to make the payment. It was for the recipient to choose to receive the money in cash or by cheque.
5. Mr. Faiz Mohy-ud-Din, Superintendent, Accountant-- General's Office (P. W. 5), stated that the original voucher Exh. P. W. 1/2 should have been on the record of the Accountant --General, but on verification it was found missing. It is also in evidence that this voucher was handled in the first instance by the appellant and should have been passed on to another branch after payment but this was not done.
6. It appears to me from the substance of the evidence produced at the trial, that the scheme of the appellant was that in case Mirza Abdul Latif consented to execute a fresh voucher on the pattern of Exh. P. W. 1/2, he would have tried to utilize the authority Exh. P. W. 1/4, for the realisation of that amount from the Treasury in cash. Abdur Rehman (P. W. 4) stated that the authority Exh. P. W.
1/4 appeared to have his signatures, but denied that they were genuine. The learned trial Court has observed that the recovery of the authority Exh. P. W. 1/4 is inconsequential and was not mentioned even in the sanction for the prosecution of the appellant. This does not appear to be correct. In the sanction order, there is definitely an allegation that the appellant had prepared duplicate authority in order to receive money. It is, therefore, clear to me that the case of the prosecution was that the appellant sought to receive the money on the basis of the letter of authority which he subsequently torn off. The evidence of Mirza Abdul Latif also is that the money was sought to be re-drawn on the basis of a fabricated authority. No investigation was, however, made into the fact, as to whether, or not, the torn letter of authority was genuine and had been removed from official custody or had been forged. The prosecutor was perhaps not able to fully comprehend the nature of the prosecution case and did not lead evidence in order to show the relevancy of this letter of authority.
7. A short legal question was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. He stated that even if the entire prosecution evidence be believed, no offence under section 420/511 of the Pakistan Penal Code could be made out. It was the contention of the learned counsel that the mere production of voucher Exh. P. W. 1/2 before Mirza Abdul Latif and a sugges--tion that the money could be realised if the witness was helpful, did not amount to an attempt to commit the offence of cheating.
According to the learned counsel it amounts to mere preparation and there was still room for locus poenitentiae.
8. I may briefly state here the law regarding attempt to commit an offence according to my humble lights. So long as an act rests on a bare intention, it is not punishable, but if the accused has gone so far, that the crime would have been completed, but for extraneous intervention, which frustrated its consummation, the offence of attempt would be complete. Attempt actually is a part execution of a criminal design, amounting to more than preparation and short of actual commission. It is the direct movement towards the commission o: offence after preparation has been made.
9. Now in this case, there is no doubt that the appellant approached Mirza Abdul Latif with a view to persuade him to join him in the fabrication of a voucher on the pattern of Exh. P. W. 1/2, and to utilize the authority letter Exh. P. W. 1/4 for realization of the amount mentioned therein. If the appellant had been able to put a suggestion in this precise form to Mirza Abdul Latif and the latter had refused to oblige him the offence would amount clearly to an attempt to cheat. The evidence, however, shows that as soon as co-operation was solicited from Mirza Abdul Latif without disclosing the particulars of the design, which the appellant had in his mind, the matter was reported to the police. I, therefore, agree with the learned counsel that on the facts as brought on record of this case charge under section 420/511, P. P. C. Has not been proved against the appellant. Under section 107, P. P. C. Instigation amounts to abetment. It is, clear that the appellant instigated Mirza Abdul Latif to co-operate with him in cheating the Government, and therefore, he will be guilty of abetment. I, therefore, alter his conviction from section 420/511, P. P. C. To section 420/116, p, p. C. He has already undergone about tea months' rigorous imprisonment. He has lost his job as a result of the present case. I, therefore, reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone. The sentence of fine shall, however, stand. In default of the payment of fine, he shall undergo term of rigorous imprisonment fixed by the trial Court.