1983 P Cr (PLP)

That according to prosecution appellant as well as acquitted co-accused Muhammad Gul Qureshi were given an opportunity to explain under the provisions of section 23 (3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, but their explanations were found unsatisfactory and consequently 8 complaints were filed against the appellant and acquitted co-accused Muhammad Gul Qureshi in the Court of Foreign Exchange Tribunal constituted under section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 i.e. the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi. Prosecution in support of its case had examined P. W. Muhammad Afzal, P. W. Imdadullah, P. W. Laiq Ahmad, P.- W. Raziur Rehman, P. W. Muhammad Asir, P. W. Arshad Mahmood and P. W. B. K. Durrani, whereas acquitted co-accused had examined D. W. Syed Asghar Ali. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it by separate 8 judgments, while acquitting co-accused Muhammad Gul Qureshi, convicted the appellant above named as here inbefore mentioned and consequently the appellant above named has filed the above 8 appeals; On' the grounds mentioned in the 8 memo of appeals. Since common legal questions and common facts are involved in all the above 8 appeals, I have decided to dispose of the above-mentioned 8 appeals, by this common judgment. The learned Advocate for the appellant in the above 8 appeals submitted as under:-- (a) That the provisions of section 22 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 are not at all attracted, as far as the appellant above named is concerned, as appellant, in none of these cases had either signed the applications nor made declarations for obtaining the bonus vouchers in question. (b) That appellant was not competent to make and sign any application under section 22 of the Foreign Exchange regulation Act, 1947 for obtaining bonus vouchers in question. It was the acquitted co-accused Muhammad Gul Qureshi, who alone was competent and all the said applications and / or declarations, admittedly were made and signed by him and then forwarded to the State Bank of Pakistan and consequently the conviction of the appellant is contrary to law. (c) That the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded in Case No. 13/71, were copied and transferred to the remaining 7 cases by substituting figures of the bonus vouchers sought and the relevant information in connection therewith. This procedure contrary to the law and as such the trial of the appellant in all these cases was vitiated and consequently the conviction of the appellant in all these cases cannot be sustained. In support of this contention the learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon cases reported in P L D 1953 Lah. 321, 1968 P. Cr. L J 776, P L D 1966 S C 708 and A I R 1950-All.

119. The learned Advocate appearing for the State in all the above 8 appeals at the outset submitted, that he was not supporting the impugned judgments on account of the fact, that none of the applications and/or declarations made to the State Bank of Pakistan were made and/or signed by appellant, but were made and signed by acquitted co-accused Muhammad Gul Qureshi and as such the conviction of the appellant cannot legally be sustained on this ground alone. In addition to this the learned Advocate for the State submitted that the learned trial court did not record the statements of the prosecution witnesses, who were common in all these cases separately in one case on the file of the other cases. by substituting certain figures and documents produced in support of, the said figures and thus violated the provisions of law relating to the trial and consequently the trial of the appellant was vitiated on this ground as well. I have taken into consideration the above submissions made by the learned Advocate before me and have gone through the R and P of the learned trial Court of all 8 cases and the impugned judgments as well as through cases cited by the Advocate for the appellant. It is an admitted position that 8 applications in the shape of form BV-4 for issuance of bonus vouchers, on the basis of alleged Home Remittances, out of which the 8 cases in question arose, were filled in by the present Appellant, in the ordinary course of his duty and were submitted for necessary signatures to the acquitted co-accused Muhammad Gul Qureshi, the then Manager of the Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd., alongwith relevant supporting documents for verification, as he was only competent officer to sign such applications and make declarations in connections therewith, according to the Prosecution Evidence on record. It is also an admitted position, that the acquitted co-accused Muhammad Gul Qureshi signed all these 8 applications and necessary declarations and forwarded the said applications to the State Bank of Pakistan for issuance of the bonus vouchers. It is also admitted posi tion that according to the practice, the bonus vouchers received from the State Bank of Pakistan were delivered to the acquitted co-accused, in his capacity as the Manager of the Bank at that time. In spite of this admitted position on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused Muhammad Gul Qureshi, on the bases of his statement, that he signed said applications and declarations in ordinary course, in routine without suspecting that the said applications were bogus. The appellant in his statements under section 342, Cr. P.C. in all these 8 cases has stated, that he had filled in the said applications, under the directions of his superior Officer and had no knowledge that the said applications were bogus. As far as his judicial confession dated 22nd September, 1970, which was recorded by late Mr. M. M. Jafri is concerned, the appellant above-named submitted, that he was forced by police to give the said confession. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Advocate for the appellant, I have carefully gone through the provisions of section 22 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 which reads as under :- "

22. False statements.-No person shall, when complying with any order or direction under section 19 or when making any applica tion or declaration to any authority or person for any purpose under this Act, give any information nor make any statement which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false, or not true, in any material particular." It is clear from the above provision, that the person who signs and/ or makes declaration under the provisions of State Bank Regulations knowing the same to be false, alone could be prosecuted for offence under this section. In. the present case, the present appellant had neither signed the said applications nor relevant declarations in connection with the alleged receipt of Home Remittances mentioned in the said applications. Mere filling of the forms BV-4 by the present appellant by itself, in my opinion would not attract the provision of section 22 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and make the present appellant liable for punishment under section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1547, specially when the appellant admittedly was not authorised to sign BV-4 forms, for obtaining bonus vouchers from the State Bank of Pakistan. The second contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant, that the statements of common witnesses in these 8 cases were simply copied out in other cases, vitiated the trial of the appellant, as such procedure was in violation of the provision of section 353, Cr. P. C. a well as sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act and as such illegal and not merely irregular, also has great force. The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of this contention has relied upon the case reported in P L D 1953 Lah. 321, which fully supports this con tention. The appellant has also relied upon the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in P L D 1966 S C 708 in this connection. As far as the alleged judicial confession of the appellant is concerned the same cannot be used against the appellant on the following grounds (a) The said confession was produced from the possession of the Prosecution and not from the Court of the District Judge, where it is alleged to have been originally sent. (b) The original said judicial confession shows lot of corrections which are alleged to bear the initial of the late Mr. Jafri, the learned Magistrate, who recorded the said confession. (c) That the appellant has alleged police pressure in, respect of the said judicial confession and retracted from the said judicial confession, before the learned trial Court. In view of the above-admitted facts regarding the said judicial confession, it would be unsafe to rely on such judicial confession all the same has been retracted by the appellant without independent corporation in respect thereof which in my opinion is not at all available on record. Therefore, in my opinion conviction of the appellant in these 8 case cannot legally be maintained as in my opinion appellant has com mitted no offence under the provision of section 22 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, so as to attract the provisions of section 23 of the said Act and further the trial of the appellant on account of the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court by bringing the statements of common witnesses recorded in one case, on the record of other case, vitiated the said trials. Therefore, I allow the above 8 appeals and set aside the conviction of the appellant and sentences awarded to him by impugned Judgments and acquit him and discharge the Bail Bonds executed by the appellant in each of these 8 appeals. M. Y. H. Appeals allowed.