1. ' Through this Criminal Revision Application, applicant/accused Islamullah has called in question the two judgments first one passed by the learned trial Court/Vth Judicial Magistrate Karachi (South) convicting the applicant in Criminal Case No,377 of 1994 for offence under section 468 P.P.0 and 'awarding R.I. For one year and to pay fine of Rs, 15,000 in default in payment of fine to suffer S.- I. For three months more and the other by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Karachi (South) dismissing Criminal Appeal No,8 of 2001.
2. ' The prosecution's case in nutshell is that the present applicant (a tenant) fraudulently made, signed and prepared the receipts for Rs, 25,000 and Rs,42,000 with forged signature of Sirajuddin (since deceased/landlord) and produced the said receipts before this Court in the mater of Letter of Administration in respect of deceased Sirajuddin filed by petitioner Mrs. Ahmedi Begum. The two receipts were referred to the Handwriting Expert by this Court during the proceedings of Suo Motu Appilcation and after receiving the report of the Handwriting Expert that the said receipts do not appear to be in the handwriting of deceased Sirajuddin, the Nazir of this Court was directed to file F.I.R. With the Police in the year 1992. It appears that no report was filed with the police till 1994 and it was thereafter when the proceedings were initiated. The applicant/accused faced his trial and he was convicted having been awarded the sentence aforementioned and his appeal was also dismissed.
3. ' In support of this revision application Mr. Naseemuddin Qamar learned counsel for the applicant has mainly argued that the applicant was convicted on the basis of evidence which was inadmissible under Qanoon-e-Shahadat. In support of this contention the learned counsel has pointed out that the original receipts and the original report of the Handwriting Expert were neither collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation of this case nor the same were produced before the trial Court at any time. His contention is that secondary evidence cannot be taken into consideration in presence of the primary evidence being available without justifying the same as required under the Qanoon-eShahadat. The learned counsel has further argued that even otherwise the evidence collected and produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the applicant/accused. The learned counsel has also pointed out that in the statement of the accused recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C., the said receipts alleged to be forged were not put to the accused and it has also caused serious prejudice to the defence.
4. ' Mr. Fazlur Rehman Awan learned State Counsel has stated that the case against the applicant/accused has been fully proved and two Courts below have rightly convicted him after taking into consideration the material available on record. However, he has not been able to furnish any satisfactory reply as to why the original receipts and the original report of the Handwriting Expert were not produced during the trial.
5. ' I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned State Counsel. I find that the proceedings before the learned trial Court suffer from illegalities and infirmities and material irregularities going to the root of the case. 'Non- production of the original receipts and the original report of the Handwriting Expert has caused great dents in the prosecution case and obviously this was the reason as to why the said documents were not shown, and put to the applicant/accused in his examination under section 342 Cr.P.C.
6. ' Without commenting upon the genuineness or otherwise of the receipts so that same may not cause prejudice to the rightful owner of the property in Suo Motu Application No,161 of 1988, I am satisfied that in the present case, the prosecution has failed in its duty to prove the guilt to the hilt- and the benefit of doubt shall go to the applicant/accused. Resultantly, this revision application is allowed and the conviction awarded to the applicant/accused by the learned trial Court as maintained by the learned 1st Appellate Court is set aside. Resultantly this revision application is allowed and the applicant stands acquitted of the charge.