The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 3-5-1990, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot rejected the criminal appeal of the present petitioner against his conviction under section 468 of P.P:C. And sentence of one year's R.I. As a result thereof, by the Magistrate 1st Class, Chiniot vide order, dated 30-11-1989.
2. The petitioner had been challaned and sent up for trial under section 420/466/468/471, P.P.C. But was convicted and sentenced only under section 468, P.P.C. As stated above.
3. Ch. Javed Iqbal, M.I.C. Chiniot, lodged this F.I.R. With the S.H.O. Police Station City Chiniot, on 21-8- 1988 with the complaint that the accused/appellant produced before him two photostat copies of Matriculation Certificate for attestation in order to be used for personal aims by changing the number and marks and showing him successful in English paper, whereas lie had failed in English paper according to original certificate, and that he had been guilty of offence under section 420/466/468 of P.P.C. The learned Magistrate directed the S.H.O. To verify the original antecedence from Education. Board of Sargodha and to proceed against the accused in accordance with law.
Exh.P.C/1 is the original complaint dated 21-8-1988, while Exh. P.C. Is the formal F.I.R. Registered at the police station in accordance therewith.
4. Muhammad Aslam, Deputy Controller (Conduct), of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha, appeared as P.W.1 and deposed that according to their record; the accused had qualified Autumn Matriculation Examination, 1987 with 249 marks, whereas in the disputed certificate, he had raised the marks obtained to 651 marks. This witness was mainly examined on his identity and he was suggested that he was not the Deputy Controller (Conduct). He denied the suggestion and verified the letter Exh.P.A. Showing details of the result of the accused, as described above. In paper of English, he obtained 8 marks, which were shown as 98 in the disputed certificate.
Nothing out of record was proved or summoned to show that the certificate attributed to the accused, was in accordance with original record of the Board. There is no evidence to show that the identity of this witness, Muhammad Aslam was doubtful. Therefore, there is no material to justify disbelieving the witness. P.W.2 Muhammad Tahir Masaud, Reader of the Complainant/Magistrate deposed that on 21-8-1988, while he was working as a Reader at 10-00 a.m., the accused gave the forged document to the learned Magistrate for attestation he also deposed that on interrogation, the accused had confessed his crime and that his confessional statement was also recorded, and that he did not remember as to who had signed the confessional statement. He was suggested and he denied the suggestion that the accused never appeared in the Court nor he produced the certificate to the Court. Riaz Hussain, Ahlmad appeared as P.W.3 and deposed that the disputed certificate was produced by the accused before the learned Magistrate in his presence. This witness was suggested and lie denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the complainant/Magistrate Sarfraz Khan, Muharrir, certified the registration of F.I.R.
5. Ch. Javed Iqbal, M.I.C. Chiniot, appeared as P.W.5 and deposed that after committing forgery, the accused had produced before him forged certificate and forged photostat copies of the certificate for the purpose of attestation. He did not depose anything regarding confession of the accused and nor he was put any question regarding this aspect. During the cross-examination, the complainant deposed that he had no acquaintance with the accused previously and that had not obtained his identification from any other person and that he had come to know his antecedents during the proceedings. Ghulam Haider, S.1, appeared as P.W.6 and justified his investigation and denied the suggestion that he had failed to record the defence evidence of the accused under the pressure of the learned Magistrate.
6. The accused in his statement under section 342 of Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations and declared himself innocent and offered that he will not lead defence evidence and even lie will not give his own statement on oath. Again his statement was recorded on a subsequent date. When he stated that he did not want to lead defence evidence and nor his own statement on oath.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner anal the State have been heard at length and the record of the case perused with their assistance.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner after having argued at some length for the setting aside of the impugned judgments, finally rested his case by contending that the petitioner was a young man and he has already suffered substantial imprisonment of over 5 months and that as the sentence was only of one year's R.I. Therefore, having been entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 382=B, Cr.P.C., and taking into consideration that he must have become entitled to some remission in accordance with the jail rules, therefore, it shall meet with the ends of justice, if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
9. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above, while dismissing the present criminal revision petition, being devoid of merit, nevertheless, the sentence of the petitioner is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. He is on bail his bail bonds stand discharged.
10. In accordance with the terms stated above the present criminal revision petition stands dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.