1. ' Muhammad Anwar (35), Abdul Rashid (33), Khalid Hussain (29), Muhammad Saeed (36), Muhammad Arshad (34) and Muhammad Ashfaque (33) were tried by Judge Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials No,2, Lahore for offences under sections 489-A, B, C, D and E, P.P.C. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 26-11-1987, convicted all the accused under sections 489-A and D, P.P.C.
2. Accused Khalid, Rashid, Saeed and Anwar were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,20,000 each or in default to undergo R.I., for two years under section 489-A, P.P.C. Arshad and Ashfaque accused were sentenced to seven years' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs,10,000 each or in default to undergo R.I. For one year each, under section 489-A, P.P.C. Accused persons, namely, Khalid, Rashid, Saeed and Anwar were also convicted under section 489D, P.P.C. And each of them was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs,20,000 each or in default R.I. For two years.
3. Arshad and Ashfaque were also found guilty under section 489-D, P.P.C. And each of them was sentenced to undergo R.I. For seven years and a fine of Rs,10,000 each or in default to undergo R.I.
4. For one year each. Accused persons Khalid, Rashid and Saeed were further convicted under section 489-C, P.P.C. And each of them was sentenced to undergo R.I. For seven years and a fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default to undergo R.I., for six months each. All the sentences of life imprisonment of the accused persons were to run concurrently. All the accused were acquitted of the charge under section 489-B, P.P.C. Anwar, Arshad and Ashfaque were also acquitted for an offence under section 489-C, P.P.C. Accused persons Khalid, Rashid, Saeed and Anwar were further directed to suffer imprisonment of 3 months each in solitary confinement. Khalid, Rashid and Saeed have filed a joint appeal challenging their conviction and sentences. Muhammad Ashfaque, Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Arshad have filed separate appeals challenging their conviction and sentences. All the appeals shall be taken up together for disposal.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, as given in the F.I.R., is that Muhammad Akram, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Misri Shah, Lahore was present with some other police officials in an official car at Chowk Co-operative Store when Muhammad Attique, A.S.I., P.W., informed him that some persons were counterfeiting currency notes in Shama Park. The information was conveyed to Muhammad Akram, S.H.O., at about 4 p.m. In pursuance of the said information a police party was constituted which raided a Solution Factory, owned by Anwar and Arshad appellants. The police party went to the basement of the said factory, where they found Muhammad Saeed, Khalid and Rashid appellants counterfeiting currency notes. On the first floor of the basement. They found a camera machine fitted but the operator of the camera machine, i,e, Ashfaque appellant, managed to escape. Anwar and Arshad appellants also escaped at the time of the raid. However, Saeed, Rashid and Khalid Hussain were arrested at the spot. Electric Press Machine (Rotta Printing Machine) P.1, Trader Printing Machine; P.2, Paper Cutter, P.3, Electric Camera with stand P.4, Painting Table P.5, Contact Camera P.6, Plate Frame P.7, Offset Plate, 33 in number, P.8, Colour Pencil Box, P.9, Geometry Box, P.10, Iron Dyes, 16 in number and wooden Dyes 6 in number P.11, Number Machines, 4 in number, P.12, Printing Ink, four cartons, P.13, Offset Plate with numbers and signatures of Aftab Qazi, 100 in number, P.14, Positive Films of 100 Rupees Note, 6 in number, P.15, Positive film of 100 Dollars Note, 6 in number, P.16, Positive Film of Rs,2 Note, 4 in number, P.17 Positive Film of numbers, 33 in number, P.18, 558 Notes of 100 dollars each P.19, 690 Notes having print on one side of 100 dollars, P.20, 1020 notes without number, of Rs,100, P.21, 3,23,700 notes without number of Rs,2, P.22, Damaged Printing Papers of currency notes P.23, six bundles of white paper P.24, five notes of 100 dollars each out of which four appeared to be counterfeit and one genuine, P.25, and P.25-A, Iron Table P.26, one Revolving Chair, P.27 and three Chairs P.28 were taken into possession from the premises.
5. ' After the recovery of the above-said articles, Muhammad Akram, S.H.O. Police Station Misri Shah, Lahore drafted complaint, Exh.P.B. And sent it to Police Station Misri Shah for registration of a case.
6. Formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 was recorded on 12-1-1987 at 6-45 p.m. Thereafter he prepared the rough plan, Exh.PA./1 of the place of occurrence. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and then arrested Muhammad Saeed, Abdul Rashid and Khalid Hussain appellants. He sent all the above- mentioned articles to Police Station Baghbanpura. Thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to Muhammad Ishaque, P.W. Inspector C.IA. Muhammad Ishaque, Inspector, C.IA. Recorded the statements of the witnesses on 20-1-1987 and took into possession documents Exh.P.D./1-13 from Attique-ul-Haq, P.W. Vide memo. Exh.P.D. Muhammad Nisar P.W. Produced a document Exh.P.C.
7. About the purchase and payment of Camera Lens which was taken into possession vide memo.
8. Exh.P.C./1. On 20-1-1987, Saeed appellant while in custody, led the police party to his house and got recovered two bundles of notes of the denomination of Rs,2 each. Exh.P.29/1-2, from his house, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. Rough plan Exh.P.E./1 of the place of recovery was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Khalid appellant on the same day i,e, 20-1-1987 led the police party to his house and got recovered 6 bundles of counterfeited currency notes Exh.P.30/1-6 from an iron box, which were secured vide memo. Exh.P.F. The rough plan of the place of recovery Exh.P.F./1 was also prepared. Arshad appellant was arrested on 18-1-1987. Arshad appellant while in custody on 21-1-1987 led the police party to the shop of Abdul Rauf P.W. a dye-maker, who produced seal P.37 which was secured vide memo. Exh.P.L. Rashid appellant while in custody, led the police party to his house on 24-1-1987 and produced a bundle of notes of the denomination of Rs,2 each Exh.P.31 which were secured vide memo. Exh.P.G. The Investigating Officer prepared the rough plan Exh.P.G./1 of the place of recovery. He sent the notes to the State Bank of Pakistan, which opined vide its report, Exh.P.H. That all the notes were counterfeit. He sent five dollars to the National Bank of Pakistan, and according to the report, one was genuine while the remaining four were counterfeit. After necessary investigation he challaned the appellants to the Court.
3. The prosecution in support of its case has produced 11 P.Ws. In all. P.W.1 Muhammad Akram, Inspector conducted the raid on the Solution Factory of the appellants and arrested Muhammad Saeed, Abdul Rashid and Khalid from the premises. He also took into possession various articles used in the counterfeiting of the currency notes, vide memo. Exh.PA. He drafted the complaint Exh.P.B. And sent the same for registration of a case. He had also partly investigated the case.
9. Muhammad Attique, S.I. P.W.2, had informed Muhammad Akram, Inspector/S.H.O., on 12-1-1987 about the counterfeiting of the coins. He was also a member of the raiding party which raided the Solution Factory, Shama Park, S.T. Road, Lahore. Muhammad Rafique, P.W.3, who is the owner of a Printing Press, sold a trader machine on the asking of Arshad appellant to Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Anwar for a consideration of Rs,18,000 Muhammad Nisar, P.W.4 had sold a camera, a contact frame, a light table and a plate making frame to Khalid and Ashfaque appellants for a consideration of Rs,40,000. The delivery of the above-said articles was obtained by Khalid while Ashfaque and Anwar appellants made the entire payment. Attiqul-Haq, P.W.5, had sold a Rota machine to Khalid and Saeed appellants for a consideration of Rs,69,000. Akbar Ali, S.I., C.I.A. Staff P.W.6, witnessed the recovery of two bundles of counterfeited currency notes of Rs,2 each P.29/1-2, from his house which were secured vide memo. Exh.P.E. He also witnessed the recovery of six bundles of notes Exh.P.30/1-6 of the denomination of Rs,2 each at the instance of Khalid appellant from his house which were secured vide memo. Exh.P.F. On 24-1-1987 he also witnessed the recovery of a bundle of notes of the denomination of Rs,2 each P.31, at the instance of Rashid appellant, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.G. On 10-3-1987, he was given some notes which he delivered in the State Bank of Pakistan to the Currency Officer. He also obtained report Exh.P.H. To the effect that all the notes were counterfeited. He also delivered five notes of 100 dollar each in the Main Branch of National Bank of Pakistan and obtained the report Exh.P.J. Of the Expert, Khawaja Abdul Mateen, P.W.7, Assistant Vice-President, Foreign Exchange Department, National Bank of Pakistan, proved his report Exh.P.J. To the effect that out of five dollars of the denomination of 100 dollars each, examined by him, one dollar bearing No,G-02711046-A was genuine and the rest were counterfeit. Nazir Ahmad, Patwari, P.W.8, proved that the land bearing Khasra No,242, in Mauza Masudan Pura, measuring 13 Marlas, is owned by Muhammad Anwar.
10. Abdul Hague, S.I. P.S. Baghbanpura (P.W.9) recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1. Muhammad Khalid Virk (P.W.10), Currency Officer, State Bank of Pakistan, Lahore after examination opined that the notes Exh.P.H./1, which he was required to examine, were counterfeit. Muhammad Ishaque, Inspector C.I.A., Lahore, P.W.11 partly investigated the case and challenged the appellants. He had effected the recovery of counterfeit notes at the instance of the appellants and took the same into possession. After necessary investigation, he challaned all the accused.
11. ' After the recording of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Without oath. All of them have denied the prosecution allegations and had pleaded innocence. Muhammad Anwar appellant also appeared on oath in his defence under section 340, Cr.P.C. And stated that he had rented the premises to Abdul Rashid appellant, therefore, he did not know what was going on at the said place. In support of his contention he also relied upon a rent note executed between one Rashid and himself. He also pleaded the registration of present case because of business rivalry. The appellants also examined two D.Ws. In defence.
12. ' It is contended on behalf of Anwar, Ashfaque and Arshad appellants that they were not present at the spot, therefore, their involvement in the commission of the offence is highly doubtful. It is submitted that no recovery at the instance of Ashfaque appellant was effected. Contends that against Arshad appellant the only evidence is that he paid money to Muhammad Rafique, P.W.3, for the purchase of a trader machine, but there is no evidence which could indicate that the counterfeit currency was being made with the help of the same machine. It is contended that there is no evidence against Arshad and Anwar appellants to indicate that they are the owners of the factory. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in law by holding that Anwar appellant should have proved his innocence by producing marginal witnesses of the Rent Deed showing that he had rented the premises to Rashid appellant. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants have been controverted by the learned counsel for the State. According to the learned counsel for State, the three of the appellants were arrested at the spot red-handed, therefore, their case is established beyond any doubt. It is further -contended that the premises from where the counterfeiting apparatus was recovered admittedly belonged to Anwar appellant, therefore, his involvement is also beyond any doubt.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. According to the statement of Muhammad Akram, S.H.O., and Muhammad Attique, A.S.I., Police Station Misri Shah, P.Ws.1 and 2, respectively, (sic) is concerned, it is only to the effect that they raided a Solution Factory on Shama Chowk from where the appellants Rashid, Kalilid and Saeed were apprehended while manning the machines. Both of them have further stated that certain recoveries were effected from the said premises which were being used for making currency notes. Both the witnesses have been cross-examined at length but the defence has not been able to bring out anything on record which could suggest that they were inimical or had some motive to falsely implicate the appellants. They were, however, given a suggestion that the present case has been get registered against the appellants because of political pressure, but the same has been denied.
13. Even otherwise also, it is difficult to believe that in order to victimize the appellants the said two witnesses would procure machinery worth thousands. The defence, as taken by these appellants in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Is to the effect that they had come to the factory on the relevant day in order to purchase solution. We are afraid this assertion of the defence is also without substance. If Rashid, Saeed and Khalid appellants had come to the factory for purposes of purchasing solution then we fail to understand why the real culprits were let off and these persons were substituted. On the other hand, the evidence brought on the file is that they were apprehended manning the machine. There is also evidence that Saeed appellant while in custody led to the recovery of counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs,2 each which were secured vide memo. Exh.P.E. Similarly, Khalid appellant also led to the recovery of counterfeit notes of Rs,2 each which were secured vide memo. Exh.P.F. On 24-1-1987, Rashid appellant also led to the recovery of counterfeit currency notes which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.G. All the above-said recoveries were effected on the pointation of the appellants from their respective houses. There is no explanation available on the files as to how these appellants were in possession of the said counterfeit currency notes. The said recovery memos. Were also attested by Akbar Ali S.I., P.W.6, apart from the Investigating Officer. He has been cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on the file which could discredit the statement of this witness.
14. ' For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any doubt against Rashid, Saeed and Khalid appellants.
15. ' Now we take up the case of Arshad, Anwar and Ashfaque appellants who were not arrested at the spot but were apprehended laser on. According to the statement of Muhammad Akram, S.H.O., Misri Shah and Muhammad Attique, A.S.I., Misri Shah, P.Ws. 1 and 2, respectively, when they reached the premises, 2/3 persons were standing in the compound of the factory, but they never bothered about them and straightway went to the basement where counterfeit currency was being made. It has also come in the evidence that both of them did not know any of the said appellants.
16. Muhammad Akram, S.H.O. P.W.1, has been cross-examined at length on this point. He has stated that he did not send anybody to chase the said persons because he was mainly concerned with the counterfeiting of currency notes. Muhammad Rafique, P.W.3, who owns a printing press, has stated that Arshad alongwith Anwar appellant came to him in order to purchase a Trader machine.
17. He has further stated that the price of the said machine Rs,18,000 was paid by Arshad appellant.
18. This witness has been cross-examined at length and has also been duly confronted with his statement made before the police. Surprisingly, in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.
19. He had not mentioned the name of Anwar appellant as one of the persons who came to purchase the said machine. Similary, the name of Arshad appellant was also missing in his statement. In his statement before the Court he has specifically named Arshad appellant as the person who paid the price of the said machine, but in his statement before the police he named Khalid appellant as the one who paid the price. Going through the statement of this witness, it is clear that he has made material improvements in his statement in the Court. In such circumstances, it would be extremely unsafe to rely upon his statement. Muhammad Nisar, P.W.4, has deposed that in January, 1987, Khalid, Ashfaque appellants came to him for purchasing a camera alongwith contact frame, light table and plate-making frame. He has further stated that he handed over the said articles on the receipt of Rs,40.000 to Khalid, Ashfaquc and Anwar appellants. He has been confronted with his statement before the police, wherein instead of January, 1987, he had stated that the appellants had come to him on 6-8-1987. He had given a receipt for the payment received from them. The receipt Exh.P.C., bears the name of Khalid only. It also says that the said articles have been prepared for somebody at Sargodha. Going through the receipt Exh.P.C. It is clear that appellant Khalid alone is mentioned therein. In the absence of any other evidence it would be extremely unsafe to rely upon the statement of this witness qua Arshad and Ashfaque appellants. Attiq-ul- Haq, P.W.5, has stated that in September, 1986 he had sold a Rota machine to Khalid and Saccd appellants for a consideration of Rs,69,000. He has not named Arshad, Anwar and Ashfaque, appellants. There is no other evidence which could connect Arshad, Anwar and Ashfaque, appellants, directly or indirectly. The only evidence which the prosecution has produced has been discussed above. A perusal of the evidence, discussed above, leads to irresistable conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against Arshad, Anwar and Ashfaque appellants beyond any doubt No recovery was effected at their instance. The arguments of the learned counsel for the State that the premises where the raid was conducted are owned by Anwar appellants, therefore, his involvement in the commission of the said offence cannot he doubted.
20. After having gone through the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that the assertion of the learned counsel for State is without force. Anwar appellant made a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., as well as under section 340, Cr.P.C. On oath, wherein he has stated that he had rented out the place where the raid was conducted, to one Rashid. This defence was taken at the earliest possible opportunity. Even in his application for the grant of bail, he had taken up this plea. The Investigation Officer obtained the report of Handwriting Expert, according to which, the signatures on Rent Deed Exh.D.Y. Are not of Rashid appellant. The specimen signatures of Rashid were obtained before 'a Magistrate, but his statement has not been recorded. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly ruled out of consideration the report of the Handwriting Expert. While going through the judgment of the trial Court, we noticed that the Court was influenced by the fact that Anwar appellant did not produce the marginal witnesses of the Rent Deed in his defence. The law on the point is clear. It is not the accused who has to prove his innocence; but it is always for the prosecution to prove the case against an accused beyond any doubt, and the accused is always at liberty to take any type of defence.
21. ' For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the case against Arshad, Anwar and Ashfaque appellants is not free from doubt, therefore, giving the benefit of doubt we accept their appeals, set aside their convictions and sentences. They shall he released forthwith if not required in any other case.
22. ' The case against Rashid, Saeed and Khalid appellants is, however, on a different footing. The prosecution had led ample evidence which connects them with the commission of the offence beyond any doubt. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of Rashid, Saeed and Khalid appellants and maintain their conviction and sentences.