Fateh Muhammad v. State,

PLD 2010 Qta 67Balochistan High CourtCriminal Law2010

Bench: Ghulam Mustafa Mengal

Share on WhatsApp
P L D 2010 Quetta 67 Before Ghulam Musta fa Mengal, J FATEH MUHAMMAD ---Appellant Versus THE STATE ---Respondent Criminal Appeal No.324 of 2003, decided on 16th April, 2010. Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --- ----Ss. 420, 468 & 471 ---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.156(89) ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.550 ---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document and offence under Customs Act, 1969 ---Appreciation of evidence ---Vehicle and its allegedly forged Registra tion Book was seized from the accused and a case was registered against him ---No trustworthy evidence on record showed that the forged Registration Book was prepared by the accused to use the same as genuine knowingly ---In order to make out a case of forge ry, prosecution had to prove that the forged document was prepared and used with the knowledge and reason to believe that the document was forged, because, mere possession of a forged document was not an offence unless the same was used fraudulently ---Prosecution had failed to prove its case ---Accused was wrongly convicted by the Trial Court, which left no alternative except acquitting him of the charge ---Appeal was allowed. Obaidullah Quresh for Appellant. Mumtaz Yousaf, Standing Counsel for the Stat e. Date of hearing: 14th December, 2009. JUDGMENT GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J .---This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4 -11-2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Quetta, whereby appellant Fateh Muhammad has been convicted under section 471, read with section 468, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I.for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000 or in default thereof to suffer further R.I. for 6 months with benefit of section 382 -B, Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in F.I.R.No .32 of 2003, registered with Police Station City Quetta on 10 -2-2003 are that on 1 -2-2003 the complainant Essa Khan Shahwani, I.P./C.I.A. along with subordinate staff was on routine checking at Meezan Chowk, Quetta. During checking at 5 -30 p.m. vehicle No. BC-8712 -Karachi along with its registration book was taken into custody vide Roznamcha No.14 under section 550, Cr.P.C. from the custody of appellant and thereafter the documents of the vehicle were sent to the E.T.O. Motor Registration for its verificatio n and complaint was sent to the competent Court of law. After receipt of report from E.T.O. Motor Registration, Civic Centre, Karachi, above said F.I.R. was registered under sections 420 -468-471, P.P.C. and under section 156(89) Custom Act against the appe llant with Police Station, City, Quetta. 3. After completion of investigation Challan was sent to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Quetta, where charge under section 471, P.P.C. read with 468, P.P.C. was framed against the appellant to which he did n ot plead guilty and claimed trial of the case. 4. At the trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case, produced three witnesses namely P.W.1. Easa Jan, Inspector, complainant, P.W.2 Aurang Zaib, Constable, recovery witness of Vehicle and Registratio n Book and P.W.3 Muhammad Ali, S. -I., Investigating Officer. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The accused also appeared as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. wh erein he deposed that he purchased the said vehicle from one Abdul Muhammad. The accused also produced D.W.1. Muhammad Anwar and D.W.2 Muhammad Iqbal in his defence. 5. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence on record, convicted the appellant and sentenced as noted above. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had purchased the said vehicle from one Abdul Muhammad, and he had no knowledge that the registration book was forged and being a bona fide pu rchaser of the vehicle no case is made out against the appellant under sections 468/471, P.P.C. because the registration book was handed over to the appellant by said Abdul Muhammad and in this connection the appellant produced the agreement dated 9 -12-2002 in support of his plea. 7. On the other hand learned standing counsel while opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment is a well -reasoned and does not call for interference in the appella te jurisdiction by this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the evidence on record and also perused the impugned judgment with their assistance. 9. After scrutiny of the evidence, I am of the view that the prosecut ion failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. There is no trustworthy evidence on record which show that forged registration book was prepared by the appellant with a view to use the same as genuine, knowingly to be forged. In order to attract the provisions of sections 468 and 471 P.P.C., the prosecution has to prove that a forged document was prepared and used with the knowledge or reasons to be believed to be a forged document, because mere possession of forged document is n ot an offence unless the same is fraudulently used as genuine. There is no such evidence available on record. The forgery has been defined in section 463, P.P.C. which reads as under: Forgery .-Whoever, makes any false documents or part of a document, wit h intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or 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, c ommits forgery." In view of the above facts and circumstances in my humble opinion prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore appellant was wrongly convicted by the trial Court, there is no alternative but to accept th is appeal and acquit the appellant of the charge. A.R.K./28/Q Appeal allowed.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error, let us know.

Related judgments

Re-Investigation can be permitted under special circumstances

PLJ 2020 · Balochistan High Court · 2020

Importance of 342 Statement in a Criminal Trial

PLJ 2018 SC 453 · Balochistan High Court · 2018

Prosecution must establish that chain of custody was unbroken, unsuspicious, indubitable, safe and secure

PLJ 2018 SC (Cr.C.) 90 · Balochistan High Court · 2018

Domicile and Residence Certificate are different

PLJ 2013 · Balochistan High Court · 2013

Pakistan - The Registration Act 1908

Balochistan High Court · 2012