1. ' This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 18-12-1989 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur, whereby he has convicted the appellant under section 468, P.P.C.
2. And sentenced the appellant to suffer R.I. For one year and also to pay a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default of the same to suffer R.I. For one year more.
3. ' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an agricultural land bearing Serial Nos.6 to 10, situated in Deh Nozman, Taluka Kamber was owned by the complainant Peeral to the extent of 9-29 acres.
4. According to the allegations of the prosecution, accused Allah Rakhio Mangi who was working as Tapedar, prepared false Agriculture Pass Book No,117593 in the name of Peeral son of Ghulam Muhammad, under his own handwriting and signature and then affixed a photograph of a person other than the said Peeral son of Ghulam Muhammad and endorsed his identification in his own handwriting and signature mentioning therein the name of Peeral and particulars of the property and thereby dishonestly facilitated a bogus person to obtain loan of Rs,5,000 from Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Kamber Branch. The amount of loan was withdrawn from the bank on 5-8-1975, which was payable in five equal yearly installments of Rs,731 each with effect from 1-7- 1976. The complainant Peeral was served with notice in respect of payment of loan which took him to surprise and he reported the matter to his Nekmard Abdul Rahim and then both of them went to the Bank Manager at Kamber. They saw Pass Book in his name bearing the photograph of a different person. The complainant made an application to the Circle Officer on 1-2-1981, who after taking preliminary steps and permission from S.P. Registered case on 27-3-1982, and recorded the statements of the witnesses and secured the relevant documents. During the course of investigation, he obtained specimen writings and signatures of the appellant and forwarded the same alongwith Agricultural Pass Book containing disputed writings and signatures of the appellant. After completing the investigation sanction for prosecution against the appellant was obtained and challan was submitted in Court.
5. ' The charge against the appellant was framed under sections 420, 468, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Pakistan Anti-Corruption Act, 1947 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and demanded his trial.
6. ' In support of their case, the prosecution examined Abdul Rahim, who is Zamindar of the area, as P.W.1, who has produced Agricultural Pass Book, which was prepared by the appellant and has also produced the photograph of the accused and so also of complainant Peeral as Exhs.2/A, 2/B and 2/C, Supervising Tapedar of Ghabi Dero as P.W.2, Noor Muhammad, Field Officer A.D.B.P. As P.W.3 who has produced the Utilization report form of the loan as Exh.5-A, A.I-G. Ghulam Abbas Jafferi, who had examined the disputed. Writings and signatures with the specimen of the appellant and has produced his report as Exh.6/A and the enlarged photo writings and specimen signatures and photograph as Exh.6/B and 6/C, Rafique Ahmed, Sub-Manager, A.D.B.P. As P.W.5, who has produced the application for loan with photographs as Exh.7-A, green Agricultural Pass Book as Exh.7/B and the report of the Investigator as Exh.7/C and finally Sub-Circle Officer Jan Muhammad who has produced F.I.R. Of the case and the application of the complainant and sanction for prosecution as Exhs.8/A, 8/B and 8/D. The statement of P.D.S.P. As Exh.9. The statement of accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. As Exh.10. The accused also examined one Irshad Rehman Mangi as defence witness as Exh.11, who produced Entry No,67 of Dakhil Kharij Register as Exh.12 and closed the side.
7. ' The learned trial Judge after the evidence framed the following points for determination:-- "(1) Whether the accused had dishonestly and fraudulently prepared Agricultural Pass Book in the name of complainant Peeral and affixed photographs of a person other than the complainant and made his endorsement of attestation thereby providing opportunity to a bogus person to withdraw amount of Rs,5,000 from the Bank?
(2) What should the order be?"
8. ' After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the accused as well as the A.P.P. The learned trial Court decided the point No,1 in affirmative and convicted and sentenced the appellant to suffer R.I.
9. For one year and to pay a fine of Rs,1,000 and in default to further undergo R.I. For one month by taking lenient view of the age and that the appellant has already retired from the service.
10. ' I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Chandio, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Isserdas, penal Advocate on behalf of the Additional Advocate- General.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the loan was raised in 1974-75 while the application was moved on 1-2-1981, after lapse of 7 years and the F.I.R. Was lodged on 27-3-1982.
12. He has further argued that the Pass Book has also been signed by Mukhtiarkar and verified by the Supervisor, as such it is a case of no evidence. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on Muhammad Din v. The State 1969 PCr.LJ 1173, Abdul Rashid v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 687 and Inayat Bibi v. The State 1981 PCr.LJ 1639.
13. ' Mr. Isserdas for the State has supported the case of the prosecution and has further argued that the learned trial Court has already taken very lenient view in convicting the appellant. He has pointed out that it is the appellant who has fabricated false documents and has identified the person and photograph in his own handwriting and under his own signature. He has also pointed out that the Handwriting Expert has fully supported the prosecution case and has deposed that the signature and handwriting on the photograph as well as on Pass Book is the same as that of the specimen taken by the Circle Officer from the appellant.
14. After hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt which also gets support from the report of the Handwriting Expert that it is the appellant who has prepared the false Pass Book and also attested false photograph affixed on Pass Book. Moreover the appellant has also admitted the handwriting and attestation of photograph on Pass Book in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The trial Court has already taken a lenient view looking to the advance age of the appellant and that he has already retired from the service as such I do not feel any justification to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
15. ' The appellant is on bail, as such his bail bond stands discharged and he be remanded to custody to serve out the remaining portion of his sentence.