2012 Y L R 153
[Balochistan]
Before Abdul Qadir Mengal, J
MURAD BUKHSH ---Petitioner
versus
THE STATE ---Respond ent
Criminal Revision No.94 of 2009, decided on 19th August, 2011.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 465 ---Forgery ---Vehicle with a non -genuine number plate had allegedly been recovered
from the possession of accused, which he claimed to be in his o wnership ---Record did not
show that the forged number plate had been prepared by the accused himself with the
intention to support his title over the said vehicle ---Complainant had admitted that he had
neither recovered the vehicle with the forged number p late, nor had seen the same ---Other
recovery witness who had prepared the recovery memos did not say as to from whom the
vehicle having the forged number plate was recovered ---No evidence was available on record
to establish the case against the accused ---Both the judgments of courts below were arbitrary
and suffered from gross illegality and miscarriage of justice and the same were set aside ---
Accused was acquitted accordingly.
Barrister Muhammad Amir Lehri for Petitioner
Liaquat Ali for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th August, 2011.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL QADIR MENGAL, J. ---This Criminal Revision Petition has been directed
against the judgment dated 21 -7-2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kalat, whereby, the learned Additi onal Sessions Judge, Kalat, upheld the judgment dated 24 -
6-2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate/FCM, Surab, through which, the petitioner was
convicted and sentenced under section 465, P.P.C. for one (1) year's R.I. with fine of
Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Th ousand). In default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for
three (3) months. The benefit of section 382 -B Cr.P.C. also has been extended in favour of
the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the petition as has been narrated in the F.I.R., were that, on 1-6-2008,
the S.I/S.H.O. Ghulam Sarwar, lodged F.I.R. No.18 of 2008, with Police Station, Surab
District Kalat, for offence under sections 465, 468 and 485, P.P.C., stating therein that, on 3 -
12-2007, Ex -S.H.O. Abdul Qudoos, raided and recovered a Land Cr uiser No.BC -6570, in
which four persons were present. Initially, they fired upon police party, however, they were
apprehended and on search of the vehicle, 23 bottles of liquor were recovered. The two (2)
separate cases, F.I.R. Nos.95 of 2007 and 99 of 200 7, were lodged against the culprits.
During the investigation, the present petitioner has shown himself the owner and driver of the
Land Cruiser. The number of Land Cruiser was sent for verification to CPLC, Karachi. The
report of the same received, which shows that, the number -plate was on the name of one,
Anzal Nawab. Whereupon, the instant case F.I.R. No.18 of 2008 was registered against the
petitioner, and the petitioner was challaned before the Judicial Magistrate. The learned trial
Court, on conclusio n of the trial, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned
hereinabove, against which, the appeal was filed before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kalat, same was also dismissed, as such, the present petition.
3. I have heard Barrister Mu hammad Amir Lehri, for the petitioner, while Mr. Liaquat
Ali Advocate was heard for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that, the both Courts i.e. the trial
Court and as well as the Appellate Court, have failed to appreciate the evidence and thereby,
passed erroneous judgments, contrary to the provisions of law. Admittedly, the evidence,
which has come on record, speaks only about the possession of any number -plate, but not
possession of any vehicle. Both the Courts below ha ve convicted and sentenced the petitioner
on the basis of a number -plate, while there is nothing on record that, the said number -plate
was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Again, the elements or ingredients of
section 465, P.P.C. are missin g in the present case, as such, no case has made out against the
petitioner under section 465, P.P.C. Thus, no any offence has committed, falling under
section 465, P.P.C., on this ground, both the judgments are illegal, as such, requires to be set
side. L earned counsel further argued that, the Land Cruiser was not belonged to the petitioner
nor any number -plate has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, but on
account of non -reading or misreading of the evidence, a wrong conclusion has been drawn
and petitioner was wrongly convicted for the alleged offence.
5. Mr. Liaquat Ali, Advocate, appearing for the State, strenuously opposed the
contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that, the petitioner along with
three othe r co-accused was arrested in case F.I.R. No.99 of 2007, where in that case, his
statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he had claimed the
ownership of the vehicle No.BC -6570 to him. As such, on the basis of the forged Plate
No.BC-6570, the present case was lodged against the petitioner after verification. So being, it
means that, the number -plate was forged and the petitioner knowingly affixed the same on his
own Land Cruiser, therefore, the both Courts rightly have convicted t he petitioner in the
present matter.
6. After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that, there is a great force in the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, there is no any evidence on record, to
make out any case for forgery, to which, the petitioner has been held responsible. The forgery
as has been defined under section 463, P.P.C. shows; "whoever makes any false document or
part of a document, with intent to cause damage or injury, or support a claim or title or to
cause any p ossession to part with property, or to enter into any expressed or implied contract,
or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery".
7. Here in the present case, it is stated that, a Land Cruiser was recovered from the
possession of the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.99 of 2007, in which, he had shown himself the
owner of the Land Cruiser and on investigation, it has been found that, the number -plate of
the same was not genuine. However, there is no witness or nothing is on record that forged
number -plate BC -6570 was prepared by the accused himself with intention to support a
claim or title over the Land Cruiser. Prima facie it appears that respondent/ accused wrongly
has been charged under section 465, P.P.C. instead of section 471, P.P.C., which is about
using as genuine a forged document, knowing it as same is forged document.
8. However, while considering the evidence, it appears that the complainant Ghulam
Sarwar, himself has admitted that, he himself has not seen or recovered the Land Cruiser or
number plate of the Land Cruiser from the possession of the petitioner. According to him, his
predecessor about six months back, had written to the CPLC to present report about its
genuinity, as such, the CPLC has reported that, on the said number, a vehicle of one Anzal
Nawab is running, as such, after receiving the report, he lodged the instant case against the
petitioner. The next important witness of the case is the recovery witness, Muneer Ahmed
P.W.2. He has stated tha t, on 1 -6-2008, one Land Cruiser No.BC -6570, S.I. Abdul Qadir had
taken into possession in presence of him and Muhammad Younas and he prepared the
recovery memos, which bears his signature. The statement of this witness does not show that,
from whom, the a lleged Land Cruiser bearing No.BC -6570 was recovered or taken into
possession. The last witness of the case, is the Investigating Officer Abdul Qadir, he has
stated that, the investigation of this matter entrusted to him by the S.H.O. Ghulam Sarwar, he
took into possession of number -plate of the vehicle bearing No.BC -6570, registered the case
against the petitioner and on completion of the investigation, challaned the matter. Thus,
considering the above evidence, it appears that, there is no any iota of the evidence, on record
to establish a case against the petitioner, falling under section 465, P.P.C. or section 471,
P.P.C., so that the respondent/accused could be held guilty of the alleged offences.
Thus, the above all facts, shows the gross illega lity and miscarriage of justice, by passing the
impugned judgments in the arbitrary manner, therefore, the both judgments dated 24 -6-2009
and 21 -7-2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Surab and the Additional Sessions Judge,
Kalat, are set aside and th e petitioner is released forthwith, provided if not required in any
other case.
N.H.Q./108/Q Revision petition accepted.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.