1. ' By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of the above six appeals as they arise out of common judgment and the parties to these cases are also the same.
2. ' Briefly the facts of prosecution case are that during the month of March/April, 1989 appellant Rab Dino Shaikh serving as Assistant at Research Section Finance Department, Karachi by abuse of his official position, in collusion with co-appellant Fayyzuddin, Headmaster, caused Muhammad Moin to make signatures of Rao Abdul Rasheed, Section Officer, Finance Department, Karachi on sanction order of Rs,62,568 for purchase of house by Shaikh Umer Daraz, Supervisor, Education Department with intention of causing it believed that the said sanction order has been signed by Rao Abdul Rasheed and used the same as genuine and got paid the above amount as advance for purchase of house after accepting illegal gratifications at the rate of 10% of the total amount through appellant Fayyazuddin and during that period accepted the money amounting to 10% of the total advance amount from Umar Daraz and thereby both the appellants have committed offence punishable under sections 420/ 468/34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. ' Charge under sections 420/468/34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act was framed against both the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. ' In support of his case the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Rasheed Ahmed, P.W.2 Umer Daraz, P.W.3 Rao A. Rasheed, P.W.4 Khalida Noor, P.W.5 Mustafa Khan, P.W.6 Jehangir Mirza, P.W.7 Feroza Rani and P.W.8 Moula Dad, Handwriting Expert. On the analysis of their evidence the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Karachi convicted both the appellants and sentenced them to suffer R.I. For eight (8) months and to pay Rs,2,000 each as fine or in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. For one month each.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for appellants and learned State Counsel at length and have also gone through the entire record with their assistance. It is contended by counsel for appellants that the trial Court has not fully and properly considered the provisions of section 468, P.P.C. And based their conviction on this section alone. It is further averred that the prosecution has failed to prove section 468, P.P.C. As there is no evidence on record that the appellants have committed forgery. The evidence of Handwriting Expert was believed as no original sanction orders were sent to him rather carbon copies were sent for comparison. In support of above contentions he has placed reliance on the following cases:
(i) Abdul Sattar v. The State PLD 1984 Peshawar 146.
(ii) Ali Anwar v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 2107.
(iii) The State v. Ilam Din and others 1986 PCr.LJ 2072.
(iv) Ashiq Hussain v. The State 1993 SCM R 417).
6. ' It is interesting to note that in the F.I.R. The prosecution has not impleaded any one of the appellants and even the names of the appellants were inserted by hand in the challan submitted before the trial Court. P.W. Abdul Rashid, D.E.O., Karachi in his cross-examination has stated as under: "It is correct that cheques are being issued by the A.-G. Office in pursuance of sanction orders of the Finance Department and it is found that there is no proper sanction then no such cheques are being issued by the A.-G. Office. I never saw the accused making any forgeries or issuing unauthorised sanctions."
7. ' Even P.W.2 does not involve the appellants herein and stated as follows: "I after completing formalities handed over him the application form which was returned to him after about one month duly sanctioned. P.W. Jehangir had obtained from me Rs,2,000 for getting the loan sanctioned in my favour."
8. ' Rao A. Rasheed, Section Officer, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi has stated in his evidence before the trial Court as under: "Some one has forged my signatures. I see Exh. 7 and say that this sanction order bears my forged signature. I know accused Rub Dino Shaikh, he was Assistant with me 'at that time. One SDC Rasheed Pathan had complained regarding issuance of forged sanction orders. I personally do not know as to who has forged my signatures."
9. ' It is further interesting to note that the trial Court has believed the evidence of Moula Dad Khan, retired Handwriting Expert who has stated in his cross-examination as under: "The specimen signatures has been obtained before the Magistrate and not before me. It is correct to suggest that the typing material on documents which I had produced is of carbon copies but the documents bear the original signature."
10. ' The prosecution even has not examined the Magistrate before the confessional statements of the appellants were recorded. I the case of The State v. Ilam Din and others (supra) the Court has observed that failure by prosecution to prove accused's identity with regard to specimen thumb- impressions and specimen signatures renders to no avail evidence of Finger-print and Handwriting Experts to the effect that signatures on allegedly forged documents were those of accused, in such case accused cannot be convicted of any offences. In the case of Ali Anwar v. The State (supra) this Court has observed as follows: "As far as his conviction and sentence under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Is concerned prosecution has failed to prove that he had committed forgery and he had used the forged documents as genuine. Even evidence of Mr. Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert cannot be relied upon in this respect inasmuch as the original report has not been produced before the Court as the same was produced in Case No,113 of 1980 and it has also been admitted by the Expert that Khalid Rasool another Handwriting Expert had also exam ,ed these documents alongwith him but he has not been examined. Moreover, the evidence of Handwriting Expert as merely of corroborative nature and it cannot form sole basis for conviction."
11. 'When confronted with the above case-law and lacuna in the prosecution case the learned State Counsel has frankly conceded that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
12. ' For the aforesaid reasons I accept these appeals and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants. The appellants are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds stand discharged/cancelled.
13. ' Foregoing are the reasons for the short order announced in open Court on 15-5-2001.