Explanation of PPC Section 170

Personating public servant, cheating by personation, forgery for purpose of cheating, using a forged document

SCOPE--- BAIL, REFUSAL OF---CRIME AGAINST SOCIETY

• Accused was nominated in FIR with specific allegation to defraud innocent people by extracting money to get them job.
• Forged appointment letters had been recovered from possession of the accused.
• People, who became prey to the fraud of the accused had implicated the accused in the crime.
• Deceptive behavior of the accused depriving the innocent poor people from their life saving could not be ignored---

“Such offence was not only heinous but an offence against humanity and society- Accused did not deserve discretionary relief, when there existed a prima facie case against him---Accused was refused bail, in circumstances.”

NAQEEB SHAH   VS  STATE   (2019 YLR 999)

Possession of narcotics, personating a public servant, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE-----------BENEFIT OF DOUBT

Prosecution case was that a vehicle driven by the accused, was stopped on the main road, taken to the police station, accused was interrogated there and a plastic sack in a carton, tagged on to bonnet of the vehicle above the engine containing ten packets of heroin, weighing one kilogram each, total ten kilograms was recovered

Reportedly, a card of intelligence agency from the pocket of accused was recovered, which was found fake on verification-

Record showed that no recovery was made from the motorcar after it was stopped for checking but at the police station in the presence of police officials other than those present with the complainant at the time of stopping of the vehicle, which made the recovery and the case against the accused doubtful

Testimony of marginal witness was not worthy of reliance in view of his own admission that he was not the eye-witness of the occurrence

Absence of independent witnesses from the general public in spite of prior information to the complainant; and non-production of police officials present with the complainant certainly cast doubt on recovery of the contraband from the car at the police station

Covering of considerable distance by the vehicle, generating heat from the engine, would make the recovery more doubtful, for the reason of heroin changing its very nature in the face of so much heat

Nothing was on the record to establish nexus of the accused with the recovered narcotics, as neither evidence was brought on the record to show him either owner of the car or its driver

Accused was acquitted from the charge under S.170 Penal Code, 1860 by the Trial Court

State did not file appeal against the said acquittal, which would not only shake the FIR but also would raise question about case and evidence of the prosecution against the accused.

Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove recovery of narcotics from the possession of the accused, thus accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

 (IMTIAZ ALI VS  STATE  2018 YLR 1067 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

BAIL BEFORE ARREST, REFUSAL OF---RULE OF CONSISTENCY---APPLICABILITY

Using as genuine a forged document; forgery for purpose of cheating; cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property; cheating by personation; wearing a garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent; personating a public servant; criminal misconduct

Accused persons, in collusion with co-accused, were alleged to have prepared fake appointment/transfer letters and other related documents and thereby inducted fake constables in the police department

Accused sought confirmation of pre-arrest bail already granted to them on ground of rule of consistency, as the co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court

High Court, distinguishing the case of the co-accused from present accused persons, declined to apply the rule of consistency

Anti-corruption Establishment, after conducting detailed inquiry, had declared the accused persons guilty.

Bail applications were, therefore, dismissed.

(MARGHOOBUL HASSAN VS STATE 2016 YLR 1827 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)