' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,253 of 2000 directed against the judgment, dated 4-2-2000 passed by Special Judge (Central), Lahore, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 5(2)/47, Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to imprisonment which he had already undergone while the other offences i,e, under sections 420/468/471/209/109/204, P.P.C.
Alleged against him were not proved.
2. The facts in brief as narrated by the complainant in complaint Exh.P.A. Are that the appellant passed his matric examination in the year 1971 against Roll No,34617 from Muslim High School, Narowal in which he gave his date of birth as 25-1-1954. He got employment in Income Tax Department Pasrur as Stenographer in the year 1986 when he was 32 years of age through a forged and false matriculation certificate alleged to have been passed vide Roll No,4872 from.
Gujranwala Board of Secondary Education wherein he showed his date of birth as 26-10-1962. In this way he committed a fraud and forgery in respect of the entries in matriculation certificate and got employment on forged documents. On the basis of these facts F.I.R. Exh.P.E. Was recorded.
3. Prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 9 witnesses including Investigating Officers, complainant and other relevant persons. Prosecution evidence was closed by the Inspector Legal, F.I.A., C.C., Lahore. Thereafter, statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He also tendered in evidence copy of plaint in case Nazir Hussain v. Liaqat Ali and another in Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narowal, Exh.D.A., certified copy for written statement filed by Liaqat Ali Exh.D.B., certified copy of the order sheet Exh.D.C., list of witnesses Exh.D.D., original order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Sialkot for constituting a Special Medical Board for the postmortem of Basharat Ali deceased Exh.D.E. Newspaper Daily, 'Jang', dated 10-5-1990 Exh.D.F., affidavit of Mr. Ghulam Hassan, Advocate Exh.D.G., certified copy of F.I.R. No,1068 Exh.DH, copy of challan Exh.D.I. And copy of application for remand Exh.D.J. In his defence. He also tendered in evidence his written statement Exh.D.K. And closed his defence evidence.
4. During the investigation the appellant alongwith Bashir Ahmad co-accused was challaned and they both were duly charged to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial. During trial Bashir Ahmad co-accused was acquitted under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that no charge under sections 468/471, P.P.C. Was proved against the appellant and he was not convicted by the learned trial Court. He submits that thereafter no conviction under section 5(2)/47 P.C.A. Could have been awarded to the appellant because appellant was not a public servant before entering into his office as Stenographer. He submits that learned trial Court was wrong in convicting the appellant.
He further submits that in the inquiry held by his department he was also found guilty, he was not dismissed but his services were terminated by the department. That the allegations levelled against the appellant are not proved and the conviction under section 5(2)47, Prevention of Corruption Act is not maintainable as the same does not fall within the ambit of said section of Prevention of Corruption Act He has relied upon 1985 PCr.LJ 1015,1985 P.Cr.L.J.2764, 1986 PCr.LJ 811 and NLR 1984 Criminal Cases, Lahore 748.
6. On the other hand learned Additional Advocate-General on Court call, submits that first of all the appellant appeared in Matriculation Examination from Lahore Board under Roll No,4874 through a recognized School and date of Birth was shown in his admission form as 25-1-1954 and without disclosing this fact he again appeared in the Matriculation Examination after submitting his admission form from Gujranwala Board, wherein he has given his date of birth as 26-10-1962 and thereafter clearing the matriculation examination from Gujranwala Board he got matriculation certificate and on the basis thereof, he obtained service in the Income Tax Department as Stenographer. Record from both the Boards was produced before the learned trial Court and the witnesses in this regard were also examined. Learned Additional Advocate-General further submits that on the basis of that matriculation certificate in which wrong date of birth was shown, he obtained the service in the Income Tax Department. He adds that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record minutely.
In the instant case the complainant Abdul Naseer was examined as P.W.2 who has stated before the trial Court that he knew the accused person present in Court who passed his matriculation examination in 1979 according to which his date of birth was 25-1-1954. In 1986 he got employment in Income Tax Department when his age was 34 years. He further submitted that to show his lesser age he obtained forged certificate from Gujranwala Board showing his date of birth as 26-10-1962.
Thereafter, he reported the matter to the office of F.I.A. Through an application Exh.P.A. Which was signed by him as well as Nazir Hussain complainant. Opportunity to cross-examine him was given but he was not cross-examined by defence counsel. It means that appellant admitted what the P.W. Had stated before the learned trial Court. Then there is Shakeel Yousaf P.W.1, according to him the appellant started his service in Government High School Narowal as Teacher. He was incharge of the record room. He also produced Exh.P.I. The attested copy of Register Dakhal Khraj, according to which Liaqat Ali appellant was admitted in their School at serial No,4150 and his date of birth was recorded as 25-1-1954 Exh.P.2 was the attested copy of the result sheet of matriculation examination according to which the appellant had passed matric under Roll No, 34617 securing 497 marks in year 1971 from Lahore Board and his date of birth was recorded as 25-1-1954. He produced the above sheets before the Investigating Officer who took the same into possession vide memo. Exh.P.A. Appellant was again granted an opportunity to cross-examine the witness but the learned counsel for the appellant did not ask a single question to him. It means that what this witness stated was accepted by the appellant. According to statement of P.W.3 Abdul Khaliq Assistant Professor, Government College, Gujranwala, one Raja Jameel known to him came to him and asked him to attest the form of Liaqat Ali for issuance of identity card. He demanded the proof of the date of birth of Liaqat Ali and he was shown a certificate issued by D.H.O., Sialkot on which approximate age of Liaqat Ali was 24 years. He attested the said form, photostat of which is Exh.P.3.
This witness further stated that when he attested the identity card forms, the word (URDU TEXT) and figures of date of bir,th were not written which were inserted later on.. In cross-examination he stated that in the said form, when he attested, the age as 24 years was over-written on the figure
25. Even Muhammad Ashraf Retd. Principal Elementary College Narowal while appearing as P.W.4 has stated that he was Headmaster in Government High School Narowal in 1994. He got forms of supplementary matriculation examination attested and at that time on said form date of birth of the appellant was mentioned as 26-10-1962, according to the result of Gujranwala Board. The original form which this witness had attested was not before him. Sultan Ahmad C.D.G. Officer, D.H.O. Office, Sialkot while appearing as P.W.5 submitted that he issued birth certificate of Liaqat All appellant on the demand of Deputy Director, F.I.A., Crime Circle and that certificate is Exh.P.5.
Certificate P.6 was also issued by, him, the date of birth according to the certificate was 2-21954. In cross-examination he had stated that at Serial No,1 on page No,240 the name of Liaqat Ali appellant was overwritten after cutting the name of Khadim Hussain. Then Abdul Khaliq Baig, Administrative Officer, Office of Commissioner, Income Tax, Gujranwala has stated that Liaqat Ali was posted as Steno-typist on 26-12-1985 and he joined on 1-1-1986. There was complaint against Liaqat Ali that he had tampered with his date of birth from 25-1-1954 to 26-10-1962. The inquiry was held and Liaqat Ali was found guilty and so he was removed from service. He had admitted that he did not hold the inquiry himself. Prosecution also produced Muhammad Adil, Deputy Controller, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore as P.W.7 who stated that he had informed F.I.A. About the date of birth as 25-1-1954 of Liaqat Ali appellant vide letter Exh.P.0 which was correct according to the record and he duly signed the same. Although opportunity was given to defence counsel to cross-examine the said witness but not a single question was put to him by the Defence counsel. Abdul Rauf, Assistant Director, National Registration Department Mianwali P.W.8, stated that he wrote a letter Exh.P.C. Dated 2-11-1993 to the Investigating Officer Maqsood Ahmad A.D. F.I.A.
Which was signed by him. Only one question was asked by him and he replied that he was not posted at Gujranwala in 1995. Thereafter, the last witness of the prosecution was Ahmad Hussain, D.S.P., City Sialkot who while appearing as. P.W.9 stated that he investigated the case, collected the documents in question and then completed the investigation and challaned the accused. After going through the prosecution evidence and submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered view that prosecution had proved its case against the appellant even under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. The offence relating to the documents and to trade and property marks have been given in Chapter XVIII of Pakistan Penal Code. The definition of forgery has been given in section 463, P.P.C. Which is reproduced below:- Forgery.- Whoever makes any false document or part of a document, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
' Then for the just decision of the case I would also like to mention section 464 of the same code regarding forged documents:-- Making a false document.--- A person is said to make a false document-- ' First: Who dishonestly or fraudulently make, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or-executed by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or ' Secondly: Who; without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or ' Thirdly: Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
' The punishment for forgery has been mentioned under section 465, P.P.C. Which is also reproduced below:-- Punishment for forgery.--- Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
' Ultimately the sentence is given in section 468, P.P.C. Which relates to forgery for purpose of cheating. In this case it has been proved on record that the appellant had tampered with his date of birth, firstly, while appearing in matriculation examination in the Lahore Board as stated by the learned Additional Advocate-General during his arguments, then concealing this fact he appeared in Gujranwala Board for the same purpose. While appearing in Lahore Board he gave his date of birth as 25-1-1954 and when he appeared in Gujranwala Board he gave his date of birth as 26-10- 1962. He committed this forgery in order to cheat the relevant authority and he cheated by producing that forged documents and got employment in the Income Tax Department, even the said department after inquiry found him guilty and terminated him from services. On my query whether an appeal against termination has been filed learned counsel for the appellant replied that he has no instruction about it. Appeal must have been filed and the same must have been dismissed. As far as conviction under section 471, P.P.C., is concerned, his case is also covered by the definition of forged document and in this regard section 470, P.P.C. Is reproduced below:-- "Forged document.-- A false document made wholly or in part by forgery is designated as a forged document."
8. I, with the assistance of both the learned counsel for the parties have gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court. I am sorry to note here that learned trial Court did not give any reasoning's whatsoever on the record that why he had acquitted the appellant under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. He noted contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant in paragraph 8 of his judgment who stated before him that no case under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Is made out. He did not give his findings in this regard while acquitting the appellant in the said offences. No appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State so, I cannot convict the appellant under sections 468/471, P.P.C. As there is no appeal against acquittal on behalf of the State. At this stage I also do not want to issue suo motu notice against the appellant in this regard but I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case under sections 468/471, P.P.C. However, as for as conviction under section 5(2)47, P.C.A. Is concerned that is maintained for the reason that appellant obtained the service in the public department after forging and cheating the department by producing forged document in which he had tampered his date of birth. This case was taken very lightly by the learned defence counsel before the trial Court as some witnesses who had deposed against the appellant were not cross-examined by him even a single question was not put to them by him. All the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are inapplicable in this case. It has also been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has already undergone his sentence and this fact has also been mentioned by the learned trial Court in his judgment. Keeping in view the above discussion, I am of the view that this appeal is meritless and the same is dismissed.