' Through this judgment I intend to dispose of three criminal appeals mentioned herein above, as the points raised in all the three appeals are common. Criminal Appeals Nos.149 and 150 of 2000 have been preferred by the appellant impugning the judgment of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby he was convicted under section 468 read with section 489(b), P.P.C. To suffer five years' R.I. And fine of Rs,3,000 and in the case of non-payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment of one month. The appellant, however, was extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts according to the prosecution case are that on the letter issued by the Chief Manager, State Bank of Pakistan, Hyderabad Branch to Deputy Director F.I.A., Hyderabad, which is incorporated in the F.I.R. Stating that on 13-9-1993, Muhammad Haroon tendered a Prize Bond No,"AASAISH"-085017 of Rs,500 domination at the Bank counter for payment of prize money, amounting to Rs,5,000 (five thousand) declared as successful draw held on 1-4-1991. On scrutiny of the said prize bond, it revealed that tampering has been done on the third digit of serial number, viz. "0" from right hand side to read the number as "AASAISH"-085017.
3. The charge was framed under sections 489, 489(b), 471 and 468, P.P.C. The prosecution examined Ghulam Shabbir (Bank Manager) P.W.1, Bashir Ahmed (F.I.A. Inspector) P.W.2, Syed Nusrat Kamal (Chief Manager, State Bank) P.W.3, whereas the appellant examined himself under section 342, Cr.P.C. After the prosecution closed it's side of evidence. The appellant, whoever, did not lead any evidence in defence.
4. According to Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, learned counsel for the appellants, the charge framed in these proceedings was defective and is incurable under section 537, Cr.P.C. He further submits that the offences with which the appellant was charged were sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Which are non-cognizable and permission of the Magistrate competent in this regard was not obtained prior to prosecuting the appellants. The cognizance taken by the trial Court was violative of section 157, Cr.P.C. He further submitted that simple possession of the bond with the appellant would not expose him with the penalty provided under the law unless the prosecution has proved that the appellant has himself tampered numbers of the bonds. He submitted that no evidence has been laid by the prosecution witnesses to establish that the appellant had knowledge of the tampering of the bonds in his possession and/or was involved in tampering of the bonds in any manner. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant and the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law in the face of the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court. In this regard he has relied upon the case of Ali Asghar v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 1913, wherein it was held by Mr. Qaisar Ahmed Hamidi, J., that mere possession of the forged currency note is not an offence. I have noticed that the appellant, who was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has denied all the allegations put to him.
5. Mr. Anwar H. Ansari, State Counsel, states that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the appellant has tampered the bonds and, therefore, he did not support the impugned judgment.
6. I have heard both the learned counsel and have perused the record. There was no material available before the trial Court, which would reflect that the tampering of the bonds was done by the appellant. Mere possession of the tampered bonds itself is hardly a ground to convict the appellant and therefore, the learned Judge in absence of such evidence which would connect the appellant with tampering, was wrong in convicting and awarding the impugned sentence. The charge framed by the trial Court also appears to be defective as there is nothing on record to show that any permission was sought to prosecute the appellant in the non-cognizable offence. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant and the evidence is not sufficient to convict the appellant, I therefore, allow these appeals setting aside the impugned judgments passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.149 and 150 of 2000.
7. In the other matter i,e, Criminal Appeal No,151 of 2000, the appellant has been convicted by the impugned judgment under sections 420, 489(c), P.P.C. Some of the witnesses in this appeal are common witnesses in the Criminal Appeals Nos.149 and 150 of 2000. Even in these proceedings the appellant has been convicted through impugned judgment to suffer R.I. For five years and fine of Rs,3,000 and in the event of non-payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for one month. The appellant, however, was extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. By the trial Court. Even in these proceedings the learned State Counsel concedes that there is no material produced by the prosecution before the trial Court, which would reflect that the appellant has tampered the prize bond and the prosecution witnesses examined by the trial Court also have failed to establish this fact, therefore, the sentence impugned in these proceedings was not supported by the learned State Counsel.
8. I have examined the record and I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The facts in this appeal are also covered by the judgment of Mr. Justice Qaisar Ahmed Hamidi. I, under these circumstances, for the reasons stated hereinabove allow this appeal and set aside the judgment impugned in these proceedings. The appellants present in Court are on bail, and their sureties and bail bonds stand discharged. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.