Manzoor Hussain son of Sehra Khan was tried by Special Judge, Anti---Corruption, Sargodha. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 1-3-1988 convicted and sentenced him under section 468, P.P.C. To nine months' R.I. With a fine of Rs.5,000, or in default thereof, two months' R.I. The convict has appealed.
2. The prosecution story in brief, as given in F.I.R. Exh. P.C., is that the appellant was posted as Head Clerk in Sargodha Improvement Trust. On scrutiny of allotment of plots in Iqbal Housing Scheme; it revealed that he made bogus allotment of Plot No.368 in the name of Feroz Din son of Nur Muhammad who did not participate in the ballot. The F.I.R. Was lodged on the complaint Exh.P.C./1 made by Rai Shabbir Ahmad, Secretary of Sargodha Improvement Trust.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced five witnesses in all. P.W.1 Idrees Ahmad stated that he had worked under the appellant who was his head clerk. He was familiar with his handwriting. According to him, Plot No.368 was allotted vide. Serial No:206 entered in Register Exh.
P.A. To one Khair Din. This entry was incorrect, because, according to the file, the plot was allotted to Feroz Din son of Nur Muhammad and not to Khair Din son of Noor Din as shown in the register. He further stated that a demand notice was also issued to Feroz Din. He deposed that the entries in the demand notice were in the handwriting of the appellant. He proved photo copy of the entries Exh.
P.B. Pervaiz Shah, Inspector/S.H.O. P.W.2 stated that on 1-6-1978 he was S.C.O./A.C.E. Sargodha. He recorded F.I.R. Exh. P.C. And investigated the case. He took into possession notice Exh. P.B. And ballot chit regarding Form No.5380 issued in the name of Khair Din vide memo. Exh.P.E. He further stated that demand notice Exh. P.B. Was in the name of one Feroze Din. Ch. Saadat All. P.W.3 was Secretary Improvement Trust, Sargodha. According to him, ballot slip Exh. P.D. Bore his signatures. He slated that demand notice Exh. P.B. Was in the handwriting of Manzoor Hussain. Rai Shabbir Ahmad, P.W.5, the then Secretary, Sargodha Improvement Trust had got the case registered against the appellant.
4. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He in answer to a question stated that Feroz Din was a fictitious person. He also appeared on oath in his defence and pleaded innocence.
5. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not proved at all. Submitted that the prosecution should have produced Feroze Din who was allotted the plot. Argued that since said Feroze Din was not produced, therefore, no case against the appellant was made out. Lastly it was argued that because of registration of the case the appellant lost his job, which, in itself, was a severe punishment. Submitted that with great difficulty the appellant could get another job and if sent behind the bars at this stage, he would lose his job, which would create great difficulty for his family members as he is the only bread-winner of the family. It was prayed that without challenging the conviction the sentence of imprisonment of (lie appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him, and in consideration thereof, the sentence of fine may be increased. The case was resisted by learned counsel for the State.
6. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence. P.W.1 Idrees Ahmad was an employee of Sargodha Improvement Trust. He stated that the appellant was his head clerk and, therefore, he was familiar with his handwriting has fully established the case of the prosecution against the appellant. Even otherwise, the documents exhibited during the trial, taken into possession by Pervaiz Shah, S.H.O. P.W.2, leaves no room for doubt. In cross-examination, the defence could not bring anything on the record to indicate any ill-will or mala fides on the part of the witnesses. Therefore, I hold that they can safely be relied upon.
For what has been discussed above, I hold the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any doubt against the appellant. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant requires consideration, therefore, a show---cause notice was issued to the appellant to the effect that why the sentence of fine be not increased. The notice was duly accepted by learned counsel for the appellant, who conceded that the fine may be increased from Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, while dismissing the appeal I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant for the sole consideration that he had lost his job earlier and is the sole bread-winner of the family. The sentence of fine is, however, increased from Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000, or in default of payment of fine R.I. For six months. The appeal is dismissed in these terms.