' The appellant was charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 419/420/109/205/468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, vide F.I.R. No,4, dated 27-5-1992, lodged in Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment, D.I. Khan.
After completion of the usual police investigations a challan was submitted against him in the Court and he was put on trial.
2. The Sessions Judge/Special Judge Anti-Corruption, D.I. Khan (Mr. Miftahuddin Khan) at the conclusion of the trial held the appellant guilty and vide his judgment recorded on 31-8-1999 convicted him under section 468, P.P.C., and sentenced him to suffer three (3) years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to suffer further S.I. For one month. He also convicted him under section 471, P.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo three (3) years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to suffer S.I. For one month. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant has challenged its legality/validity by filing this appeal.
4. Mr. Sanaullah Khan Gandapur, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and Syed Saeed Hassan Sherazi, learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State present and heard. Record of the case perused carefully.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the accused, inasmuch as they have produced no evidence, oral or documentary, worth the name, to show that he has been guilty of preparing forged/bogus documents. He also drew my attention to the fact that the charge against the appellant was not framed properly i,e,, in the manner in which it should have been and in this respect placed reliance on case "M.E.N. Rewail v. The State" reported as PLD 1957 Supreme Court 257, wherein it was held:--- "Plainly the charges are defective, inasmuch as they fail to allege the manner of the deception practised by the accused person."
6. He submitted that in the circumstances the conviction of the appellant could not be sustained and, therefore, liable to be set aside.
7. Secondly, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the examination of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C., was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C., because no specific questions were put to him regarding the documents he had allegedly forged. He further contended that in case "Maroof Jan v. The State" reported as PLD 1992 Peshawar 147, it was held:--- "In the instant case, the statement of the accused was not taken in its entirety and has, thus, caused miscarriage of justice. Question No,3 put to the accused besides being a composite question was not framed in accordance with the circumstances appearing in the evidence. The object of section 342, Cr.P.C., cannot be achieved by putting such a question to the accused."
8. Additionally, he placed reliance on case "Aftab Afgan alias Maboo v. The State" (1999 PCr.LJ (FSC)
1526), wherein it was held:--- "If a particular document is just tendered in evidence and attention of the accused is not invited towards the same by specifically questioning him within the purview of section 342, Cr.P.C., then it would not be justifiable to infer that the accused has/had a due notice of the same or that he was aware of the contents of the documents." (The underlining is mine).
9. When confronted with the abovementioned legal flaw in the trial of the appellant, conducted by the Special Judge, D.I. Khan, the learned Assistant Advocate-General had no explanation to offer.
He frankly conceded and rightly so that the trial of the appellant was not conducted in accordance with the principles of criminal administration of justice.
10. Accordingly this appeal is accepted. The appellant is acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against him. He is present on bail and his bail bonds shall stand discharged.