' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur whereby he on 25-9-1978 convicted Abdul Rashid appellant under section 465, P.P.C.
And section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs,500 in default thereof to R.I. For six months on each count.
2. The appellant was working as Head Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan in the year 1974. The charge against him is that he in collusion with Sher Muhammad acquitted accused dishonestly issued Permit Nos. 237 Exh.PA. And 238 Exh.P.B. Dated 21-5-1974 in favour of Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Sadiq for the transportation of ten heads of cattle from District Rahimyar Khan to District Karachi. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses Nazarud Din S.I. P.W.1 stated that on 27-5-1974 he received information that some cattle were being illegally transported outside district Rahimyar Khan in violation of orders made under section 144, Cr.P.C. He went to the Railway Station and found eight heads of cattle loaded in a wagon. Three persons were present there out of whom one Rajab produced permit before him. He contacted the Deputy Commissioner on telephone who informed him that no such permits were issued by his office. P.W.2 Dur Muhammad Superintendent, D.C. Office stated that Permits Exh.PA. And P.B. Were shown to him which were found bogus. The witness also identified signatures on the permits to be that of the appellant. Ch. Ahmad Hassan P.W.3 obtained specimen signatures of the appellant and sent the same for comparison with the signatures on the permits to the Handwriting Expert. Muhammad Mansha Goods Clerk P.W.4 stated that on 22-5-1974 permits Exh.PA. Of Muhammad Arshad and P.B. Of Muhammad Sadiq were received by him whereupon he issued RR Exh.PA./2 and P.B./2. Nazir Ahmad Magistrate P.W.5 stated that the specimen signatures of the appellant were taken in his presence. The trial Court examined Muhammad Yaqoob Butt, Handwriting Expert as C.W. Who stated that routine signatures were of the person who had signed permits Exh.PA. And P.B.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced two witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that except for the statement of the handwriting expert there is no other oral/documentary/circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of offences punishable under section 465, P.P.C. And section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the evidence of handwriting expert being a weak type of evidence, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Conversely the learned AA.-G. Supported the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the handwriting expert has fully implicated the appellant.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that except for the statement of handwriting expert, there is no evidence at all to connect the appellant with the commission of offences with which he stands charged and that it is by now well-settled that safe conviction cannot be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an expert witness which is certainly a weak type of evidence. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail. He stands discharged of bail bonds.