1988 P Cr (PLP)

"We have to report that during the course of audit of default it was revealed that a sum of Rs.32,500 has been embezzled/misappropriated by way of fraud and thus a wrongful loss of Rs.32,500 has been caused to the Corporation. This Corporation had a Saving Account No.526 in National Bank of Pakistan Unit No.7, Lateefabad, through which payments used to be made to various parties through cheques. It is stated that on 16-5-1979 a sum of Rs.20,000 had been drawn from the said account through Cheque No.195825 in the name of Manzoor Alam, Senior Accounts Assistant, of this Corporation, now posted at Quetta Division. This cheque was issued under the signatures of Mr. Ali Anwar Soomro, Divisional Manager and Allah Dino Chawro, Assistant Accounts Officer. The supporting vouchers for this cheque available in the record show that payment of Rs.32,500 was made to Messrs Marketing Services Limited, Hyderabad against their bill No.S/2913, dated 27-2-1979 for supply of various goods. The goods against which a payment of Rs.32,500 has been shown, have never been supplied by Messrs Marketing Services Limited. In spite of that a bogus receipt Note No.04100 dated 27th April, 1979 has been prepared and attached with the supporting vouchers; thus a sum of Rs.20,000 has been fraudulently paid in the name of Manzoor Alam Senior Accounts Officer. Again on 22-10-1979 a sum of Rs.22,500 was paid to Mr. S.A. Rasheed, Area Manager through Cheque No.196827. The said cheque was jointly signed for payment by Ali Anwar Soomro, Divisional Manager, and Wakeel Ahmad, Senior Accounts Assistant, against this amount of Rs.22,500 there are supporting vouchers of Rs.10, 000 only available in the record, and in the cash book too Rs.10,000 only have been shown as paid through his cheque No.196827, thus a loss of Rs.10,500 has been caused to the Corporation fraudulently. You are therefore requested to please register a case against the culprits for necessary legal action against them. Necessary records shall be made available as and when required by F. I. A." On the basis of above report the F.I.R. was recorded by Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Inspector, F.I.A. P.W.7 on 11-5-1980. The original letter has been produced as Exh.27 in Case No.113 of 1980. The original F.I.R. has been produced as Exh.44 in case No.113 of 1980. He has produced the carbon copy of the F.I.R. as Exh.30, while photocopy of the letter has been produced as Exh.31. On 14-5-1980 Mr. Abdul Ghafoor recorded further statement of R.S. Nazrath, and recorded statement of Aman Khan, and secured the relevant documents produced' by them. On 17-5-1980 he recorded statements of P.Ws. Tanweer Hussain, Mohammad Ishaque and Aziz Ahmed, Officers of National Bank of Pakistan, Lateefabad Branch. On 18-5-1980 he examined suspect Manzoor Alam and obtained his specimen writing and signatures in presence of Head Munshi and Magistrate of the 3rd Class, Taluka Hyderabad. He also recorded statement of Manzoor Alam. The original specimen writing has been produced as Exh.42 in Case No. 113 of 1980. He arrested accused Wakeel Ahmad in presence of Mashirs Ghulam Subhan SIP and HC Saleemuddin, and the Mashirnama has been produced as Exh.32. On 19-5-1980 he produced accused Wakeel Ahmad before Mukhtiarkar, Hyderabad, for recording his judicial confession. On 19-5-1980 he recorded statement of Abbas Ali of Marketing Services Limited, Hyderabad, and secured the documents produced by him. On 26-5-1980 he made an application under section 94, Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for granting permission to secure original documents from National Bank of Pakistan, Lateefabad, Hyderabad. The permission was granted by the Court and he secured the relevant documents from the Bank on 5-6-1980. On 1-6-1980 he interrogated the accused Allah Dino Chawro and recorded his statement. On 25-6-1980 he recorded statement of Sardar Ahmad and Abdul Lateef. On 26-6-1980 he obtained specimen writing of suspect Sardar Ahmad before Second Class Magistrate, Hyderabad. On 2-7-1980 he interrogated accused Abdul Rasheed and recorded his statement. On 30-7-1980 he obtained specimen writing and signatures of accused Abdur Rasheed in presence of Assistant Mukhtiarker, Taluka Hyderabad, which he has produced as Exh.33 in 10 sheets. On 19-7-1980 accused Shaukat Ali appeared before him and he arrested him in presence of Mashirs Masood Ali and Mohammad Ramzan of F.I.A., Hyderabad. 'The original Mashirnama has been produced in Case No.113 of 1980 as Exh.43. He produced accused Shaukat Ali before A.C.M. Site Hyderabad for recording his judicial confession which was accordingly recorded by the Magistrate. He had also obtained his specimen writing and signatures before the said Magistrate. On 26-7-1980 accused Ali Anwar Soomro appeared before him. He was interrogated and his signatures and specimen writing were obtained in presence of Assistant Mukhtiarkar, and Magistrate of 3rd Class, Taluka Hyderabad. The specimen writing and signatures have been produced in Case No.113 of 1980 as Exh.44. On 2-8-1980 he submitted interim challan against accused Ali Anwar Soomro, Wakeel Ahmad and Abdur Rasheed before the Court. On 2-8-1980 he recorded further statement of P.W. Tanweer Hussain and also recorded statement of P.W. Habibur Rehman. On 7-9-1980 he held identification test of accused Sheikh Abdur Rasheed through witness Tanweer Hussain in presence of Assistant Mukhtiarkar and Magistrate of the 3rd Class, Taluka Hyderabad. The witness was not able to pick him up in the test. The Mashirnama has been produced in Case No.113 of 1980 as Exh-.47. On 13-9-1980. he sent the documents of this case alongwith specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused and suspected handwriting to Expert F.I.A., Islamabad, for comparison and opinion. On 6-11-1980 he received the opinion from the Expert which has been produced as Exh.48 in Case No. 113 of 1980. The copy of the opinion has been produced as Exh.34. He had produced suspect Sardar Ahmad before A.C.M., Site Hyderabad and had obtained his specimen writing and signatures. He has produced a specimen writing and the signatures of accused Wakeel Ahmad 10 leaves as Exh.35. A formal charge was framed against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty. At the trial prosecution examined Aziz Ahmad P.W.1, he was working as Cashier in the National Bank of Pakistan, Lateefabad Branch at the relevant time, Mohammad Ishaque P.W.2, he was working as Assistant in National Bank of Pakistan, Lateefabad Branch at the relevant time, Aman Khan Assistant Accounts Officer, Utility Corporation P.W.3, Tanweer Hussain, Manager National Bank of Pakistan P.W,4, R.S. Nazrath Divisional Manager Utility Stores, Hyderabad, complainant P.W.5, Mohammad Bux Mashir P.W.6, he has produced Mashirnama of identification test of accused Abdur Rasheed as Exh.27, Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Inspector F.I.A., who recorded the FIR, conducted the investigation., and challaned the accused P.W.7, Sheikh Mohammad Din, Handwriting Expert P,.W.8, Mohammad Bux Bhatti, retired Mukhtiarkar P.W.9, and Mohammad Hashim First Class Magistrate, P.W.10. Aziz Ahmad P.W.1 has deposed that he was working as Cashier in the National Bank of Pakistan, Commercial Area, Lateefabad since 6-12-1978. His duty was to make payment to the bearer of the token presented at the counter. Cheque Exh.6 produced in Case No. 113 of 1980 was presented at the counter on 22-10-1979 and he had made payment of Rs.22,500 to the bearer of the token who had presented the same before him. The token No. was written on the cheque. Mr. Ishaque used to issue the token to the bearer of the cheque after obtaining the signature on the back of the cheque. He has produced the photostat copy of the cheque as Exh.5. In cross-examination he has deposed that generally the Cashier or Accountant employed in Government Office brings the cheque in the Bank for payment. He knew Manzoor Alam who was Cashier in Utility Store Corporation at Hyderabad and generally he used to come for payment in their Bank on the cheque brought by him. Whenever any order cheque was presented the word bearer on the cheque is scored off. The word bearer had been scored off on the cheque Exh.6 produced in Case No. 113 of 1980. Whenever any order cheque was brought for encashment the identification of bearer of the cheque is obtained before any payment is made to him, or the cheque is credited in his account if he has his own account in the Branch. The cheque Exh.6 was issued in the name of Mr. Rasheed. It was the look out of the Manager to order payment to the holder of the cheque and it was their duty to make payment on receiving the token. He did not know Mr. Rasheed. In case of cheque issued for more than Rs.5,000 a notice is given to the Bank for payment in Savings Bank Account. He did not know if any notice was given to the Bank in respect of the cheque Exh.6. The cheque Exh.6 in Case No. 113 of 1980 the Manager had passed the same and it bears signatures of Mr. Tanweer Hussain the then Manager of the Bank. Mohammad Ishaque P.W.2 has deposed that he has been working as Assistant in National Bank of Pakistan, Commercial Area, Lateefabad, Branch for the last four years. His duty at the Bank was to give token to the person who presented the cheque at the counter and obtain signatures on the back of the cheque. On 22-10-1979 cheque Exh , 6 in Case No. 113 of 1980 was presented before him at the counter in the name of M. Rasheed. He obtained his signature at the back of the cheque and issued token No.2884 to him, wrote a number of token on the cheque. The person to whom token was issued had put his signature in his presence. In cross-examination he has deposed that Exh.6 was an order cheque and not a cross-cheque. There was no difference in making payment on bearer cheque or order cheque. In case of cross-cheque only the payment is not made in cash but the amount is credited in the account of the holder of the cheque. He has denied that in case of order cheque the signature of the holder of the cheque is to be verified. It was for the Officer to get the signature of the holder of the cheque verified on a cheque, and not for him to get it verified. His duty was only to issue token to the person who had brought the cheque and it was the duty of the Officer to pass the cheque in any way he deemed right. The signature on the back of cheque Exh.6 in Case No. 113 of 1980 had not been verified by any Officer. He has denied a suggestion that after word 'R' on the cheque there is full stop, but after 'R' the other words were not legible due to the stamp affixed on it. The word 'Rasheed' is not clear on the cheque. Aman Khan P.W.3 has deposed that in February, 1983 he was appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer on transfer at Hyderabad, Utility Corporation. At that time accused Ali Anwar Soomro was posted as Divisional Manager while accused Abdul Rasheed was working as Area Manager, and accused Wakeel Ahmad was Senior Accounts Officer in Utility Store Corporation at Hyderabad. When he took charge, he found that the accounts were not properly maintained and Managing Director directed him to maintain the accounts upto date. The Utility Store Corporation had account bearing No.526 in the N.B.P. Lateefabad, Hyderabad. This account was opened with the credit of Rs.l lac which were given to the Utility Store Corporation by Piaro Goth Sugar Mill with the understanding that the Corporation would supply them goods needed by them. No account book was maintained pertaining to this amount but on enquiry accused Ali Anwar Soomro gave him the file containing the vouchers and other documents, and he maintained cash book while referring to those vouchers. All the payment documents which were given to him by the accused, were mentioned by him in the cash book prepared by him from 10-1-1979 to 10-10-1979 starting from pages 149 to 153 of the cash book. Exh.10 in Case No. 113 of 1980 was the same which was maintained by him in his own hand. In the cash book the last balance shown upto 30-6-1979 came to Rs.10,287.31 from which amount of Rs.10,000 was also withdrawn under a voucher for purchase of merchandise payable to Messrs Wakil Ahmad and Abdul Rashid vide Cheque No. 196827 dated 10-10-1979. The voucher has been produced as Exh.8. He has made such entry on 10-10-1979 in the cash book which has been produced as Exh.9 at page

143. Accused Ali Anwar Soomro had given the approval of the withdrawal of the amount at the request of accused Wakil Ahmad Senior Accounts Officer and Abdul Rashid Area Manager (accused), he has produced the same as Exh.10. It was signed by Wakil Ahmad and Abdul Rasheed, Area Manager and there was initial of accused Ali Anwar Soomro as Divisional Manager for having accorded the sanction. On the payment voucher Exh.8 also all the three have put their respective signatures. He then contacted the Bank authorities and found that the cheque bearing No. 196827 was issued in the name of accused. A. R. Rashid for the amount of Rs.22,

500. This cheque was signed by accused Ali Anwar Soomro as Divisional Manager, Wakil Ahmad, Senior Accounts Officer, and the cash was taken by accused Abdul Rasheed and had put his signature on the back of the cheque in token of having received the amount. He was conversant with the signatures of all the three accused. The cheque has been produced in Case No. 113 of 1980 and its photostat copy has been produced before the Court as Exh.5. Accused Ali Anwar Soomro had given him the statement of account of the Bank showing the withdrawal of Rs.10,000 pertaining to this item on 10-10-1979. The statement of account has been produced Exh.15 in two leaves in Case No. 113 of 1980 and its photocopy has been produced as EXh.11. On demand the Bank authority had given them correct statement of account duly signed by the Manager which was produced as Exh.7 in Case No. 113 of 1980, and he has produced its photo copy as Exh.12. In the statement of account given to them duly signed by the Manager an amount of Rs.22,500 was shown to have been withdrawn under Cheque No. 196827. Since in the statement of account given by the Manager the balance on credit side was shown to be Rs.22,072 while in the statement of account given by the accused the balance was shown to be Rs.10,287.31 as the voucher Exh.8 was manipulated and the amount of Rs.22,500 was withdrawn under cheque Exh.6 which was produced in Case No. 113 of 1980. The excess amount of 10,000 shown in Exh.14 in Case No. 113 of 1980 and Rs.10,000 withdrawn under the voucher Exh.8 and Exh.10 were thus equivalised. The articles shown in the voucher Exh.8 and Exh.10 were not purchased and the amount was misappropriated. He, therefore, tried to realise Rs.5,000 from the pay of Wakeel Ahmad and Rs.5,000 from the pay of Rasheed Ahmad Manager by deducting an amount of Rs.400 from the pay of Rasheed, while accused Vakil Ahmad made full payment of Rs,5,000 at Sukkur. He placed the facts before Divisional Manager who lodged report against the accused. In cross-examination he has deposed that vouchers (Exhs.8 and 10) pertain to the purchase of goods in the name of Wakeel Ahmad and Rashid Ahmed. This amount of Rs.10,000 was not withdrawn but under the cheque Exh.5 an amount of Rs.22,500 had been withdrawn in the name of A.R. Rashid. In the statement of account supplied by the Manager of the Bank, amount was shown to have been withdrawn by A.R. Rasheed. The cheque Exh.6, photostat copy of which has been produced in this case as Exh.5 is an order cheque and no other person could get payment. The vouchers Exhs.8 and 10 were signed by both accused Wakil Ahmed and A.R. Rasheed, and therefore he realised the amount of Rs.5,000 from each one of them. Accused Wakil Ahmad paid the full amount of Rs.5,000 while accused A.R. Rasheed has paid only Rs.400 which was recovered from his pay and the remaining amount was still outstanding against him. The amount of Rs.5,000 was recovered from Wakil Ahmad before the F.I.R. was lodged. The vouchers Exhs.8 and 10 were available in the file which was handed over to him by accused Ali Anwar Soomro. Accused Wakil Ahmad as a Senior Accountant had to sign every cheque issued. He might have signed about 150 cheques during his tenure at Hyderabad. He admitted to have stated in his police statement that he was not able to identify the handwriting and signatures of any accused on the documents. The cheque Exh.6 in the Case No. 113 of 1980 was signed by the person who had taken the same but was not attested by any officer of the Bank. No cheque could be encashed without the signatures of the Divisional Manager and the Accountant Utility Store Corporation, but it could not be encashed with the signature of Accountant only. There is no difference in writing on the cheque Exh.6 in Case No. 113 of 1980 in words and figures. Wakil Ahmad had not worked under him even for a single day. He has further deposed that he was under administrative control of Ali Anwar Soomro. Finance Director used to give him instructions and he used to work under his control. He was not bound to obey order of Ali Anwar Soomro. He was given order in writing. Ordinarily one cash book is maintained in one office, but in this particular case since Piaro Goth Sugar Mill had advanced the amount of Rs.l lac, a separate cheque book was maintained. He has produced the order of M.D. as Exh.13. There is overwriting in the number of the cheque given in Exh.8. The name of the person in whose favour the cheque of Rs.22,500 was issued is not shown in the statement of account, photo copy of which has been produced as Exh.12. The amount was withdrawn from the Bank in cash. Exh.6 in Case No. 113 of 1980 is the cheque issued in the name of A.R. Rashid and at the back of the cheque there is signature of accused A.R. Rashid with whose signature he was conversant. He has denied to have stated in police statement that he was not conversant with the signatures or initials of the accused persons. No transaction had taken in his presence, and he had no personal knowledge of the same: Accused Ali Anwar Soomro had taken charge at Hyderabadd on 5-3-1978. Before that he (witness) had accompanied Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Divisional Manager of Karachi for general inspection of the Utility Stores and found that there was a general mess in the accounts of Utility Stores and there were no proper vouchers for an amount of Rs.3/4 Lacs and the Corporation was undergoing a loss of Rs.4 Lacs or so. In those days there was a purchasing committee for unapproved items. Accountant/Incharge, were House Incharge, Area manager, and one person from the Union were the members of the purchasing committee. So, also Divisional Manager. The warehouse Incharge used to prepare the purchase order and Divisional Manager used to prove the same. The original bill of supply and the original copy of the goods received were issued by the Warehouse Incharge; and the copy of the purchase order were to be submitted to the Accounts Section for payment. The Accounts Section after checking the relevant papers used to prepare the Bank payment Vouchers and Accountant signed the same. It was the duty of the Accountant to check the relevant papers, and he used to put his signature on the Bank payment Vouchers as well as on the cheque and submit the same before the Divisional Manager for approval and signature. He has admitted a suggestion that cash book, sale book, property ledger, assets ledger, general ledger, cash security register, store account and transfer note Book were not being properly maintained in the Utility Store Corporation, and he had submitted such report to Managing Director and Divisional Manager. He has produced the photostat copy of report as Exh.14 which he had submitted to the Finance Director. The original of this letter was submitted to Finance Director, and its office copy might be in the office of Divisional Manager, Hyderabad. He has produced a photostat copy of letter as Exh.15 which he had received regarding the adjustment of advances from Sardar Khan to Manzoor as Exh.18. He had no personal knowledge that Wakil Ahmad had returned the amount of Rs.5,000 to the Corporation at Sukkur before the registration of this case. He had recovered the amount of Rs.400 from the pay of accused A.R. Rashid. Mr. Tanveer Hussain, Manager National Bank of Pakistan Lateefabad, Hyderabad, P.W.4, has deposed that he was posted as Manager in the National Bank of Pakistan Commercial Area Lateefabad, Hyderabad, in the year 1979. The Utility Store Corporation 'was operating account in their bank, and the account number was

526. The Divisional Manager and the Accountant of Utility Store Corporation used to operate the said account with joint signature of both of them withdrawal of any amount could be made from the said account. The cheque Exh.6 in Case No. 113 of 1980 and its photo copy which has been produced as Exh.5 in the present case bear signature of Ali Anwar Soomro as Divisional Manager, but he could not say without looking at the record as to who had signed it as Accountant. He has produced account opening form bearing signature of Ali Anwar Soomro the Divisional Manager, and Mr. Allah Dino Chawro the then Accountant employees. The original might be in the record of Divisional Manager. Divisional Manager as well as Account Section were responsible for keeping account. He denied a suggestion that only Accounts Officer was responsible for the maintenance of accounts. On seeing circular Order No. FIN No.5 of 1980 dated 26-2-1980 which he has produced as Exh.16 and according to this order the accounts section was responsible to the Executive Director Finance. He had received a letter from the accused which he, has produced as Exh.17. He had received all the files mentioned in the letter from accused. According to him he had stated in his police statement that the accused had given him the file containing the vouchers from which he had prepared the cash book Exh.11 filed in Case No. 113 of 1980. A Cashier Abrar had informed him that the file pertaining to the deposit of Rs.l lac by Piaro Goth Sugar Mill was with accused Ali Anwar Soomro and on his demand he had produced the same before him. He did not know if accused had made report against Abrar Ahmed. He has produced a letter written by. Both had signed on the account opening form in his presence on 10-1-1979, he has produced the same as Exh.19/A. The statement of account pertains to the period from 10-1-1979 to 28-10-1979 and the sane has been produced as Exh.19/B. This statement of account has been authenticated by their accountant of deposit side Mr. Rao Saghir Ahmad with whose signatures he was conversant. He has produced the specimen signature cards duly signed by Mr. Ali Anwar Soomro the Divisional Manager and Mr. Allah Dino Chawro. The Accountant of Utility Store Corporation Lateefabad, Hyderabad, as Exh.19.C. Subsequently Mr. Allah Dino Chawro was transferred to Sukkur Division, and Mr. Syed Vakeel Ahmad had taken over charge as they were informed by Divisional Manager Mr. Ali Anwar Soomro about the same and signatures of Mr. Wakeel Ahmad put on the said information was duly attested by him. He has produced the same as Exh.19-D, it was signed by Ali Anwar Soomro as Divisional Manager as well as an Officer verifying the signatures of Mr. Wakeel Ahmad. Specimen signatures of Mr. Wakeel Ahmad were duly attested by him (witness) and of Mr. Ali Anwar Soomro were obtained on another specimen signature card who had signed the same in his presence, and he too had put his signature below their signatures, the same has been produced as Exh.19-E. The specimen signatures of both of them were obtained on 31-8-1979 on Exh.19-P. The cheque Exh.5 had been issued by Mr. Ali Anwar Soomro as Divisional Manager, and Allah Dino Chawro as Accountant of Utility Store Corporation, whose signatures tally with specimen singnature card as Exh.19-C. He was also conversant with their signatures as they had signed specimen card as Exh.19-C in his presence. The cheque Exh.5 in the Case No. 113 of 1980 and photostat copy of which has been produced as Exh.21. This amount of Rs.20,000 withdrawn on this cheque has been shown in the statement of account as Exh.19-B. He has produced the entry as Exh.19-F marked in red pencil. Their Accountant Mr. Habibur Rehman Khan had passed cheque Exh.6 in Case No.113 of 1980 for the amount of Rs.22,500 which was also issued by Mr. Ali Anwar Soomro the Divisional Manager, and Mr. Vakeel Ahmad the then Accountant, and was passed by him after scrutinizing their signatures from specimen signature card as Exh.1.9-D, on verification of the ledger balance. Such entry as made in their ledger and has been shown in the statement .of account as Exh.19-B, which he had produced as Exh.19-D. In cross-examination he has deposed that the cheque can be encashed within six month after it has been issued. The account being operated by Utility Store Corporation in their branch bearing No.526 was savings account. The cheque Exh.6 in the Case No.113 of 1980 is an order cheque. By order cheque it is meant that the person who gets the cheques encashed is to be properly identified before payment of amount is made. On the back of cheque Exh.6 in Case No. 113 of 1980 two signatures of Rasheed Ahmad Officer of the Corporation had been obtained, that the payment has been made to him and his two signatures have been obtained, one at the time of issue of token at the counter, and other at the time when payment had been made. Whenever a cheque is passed, the Manager puts his signature on the front of the cheque, and when a person to whom the cash is made is known the Manager there is no need of obtaining the signature of identifier on the back of the cheque. The cashier also puts his signature when the payment is made to the bearer of the cross-cheque and the cross-cheque mark on the back with red line. Exhs.5 and 6 in Case No. 113 of 1980 do not bear signature of the Cashier. On Exh.5 there is no signature of Vakeel Ahmad in Case No.113 of 1980. The specimen signature card is being maintained in the Bank in order to see and verify the signature of the person who had issued the cheque. On Exh.6 in Case No.113 of 1980 there is signature of Vakeel Ahmad which tally with the signature on the specimen signature card produced as Exh.19-E. Whenever any person known to the Manager brings an order cheque, the Manager passes the same without identifying the signature of that person on the back of the cheque. Accused Abdul Rasheed now present in Court usually used to come in their bank in connection with official transactions alongwith the accounts officer or any other officer in the Corporation. All the officers of Utility Store Corporation at Unit No.7 Latifabad, Hyderabad, used to visit their bank usually in their official routine work and were known to him. He did not remember if accused Abdul Rasheed had any account in their bank. He did not remember if accused had got any other cheque encashed from their branch besides the cheque No.6 in Case No.113 of 1980, as it was a matter of about 5 years old. Many persons visit the branch every day in connection with their transaction. Identification test of accused Abdul Rasheed was held through him in presence of Magistrate III Class, but he could not identify him in the test as at that time he had a long .beard but when he used to visit their branch he was clean shaved. In cross-examination he has deposed that the account was being operated by Utility Store Corporation in their branch before he was posted as Manager National Bank of Pakistan Latifabad, Hyderabad, Commercial Area Unit No. 7 Hyderabad, on 24-12-1977. Whenever accused Ali Anwar Soomro and Allah Dino Chawro were issuing cheques, the staff of Utility Store Corporation i.e. Manzoor Alam, Ghayoor, Abrar Ahmad and some other employees of the Corporation whose names he did not know used to come for getting those cheques encashed in their branch. It was not possible that any person in whose favour the cheque had not been issued, could have got payment from their branch, on the cheque issued by Utility Stores Corporation. Mr. Ali Anwar Soomro had written a.letter requesting for providing statement of account pertaining to account No. 526 maintained in their branch through bearer of the letter: The original copy of letter must be lying in their branch. Exh.15 in Case No. 113 of 1980 is also statement of account issued from their branch duly authenticated by their Accountant Rao Saghir Ahmad who has put his initial on the same with whose initial he was conversant. He has voluntarily stated that on one occasion when Ali Anwar Soomro was not posted as Divisional ;Manager of Utility Store Corporation, he had made an application for giving him the statement of account of Utility Store Corporation but he had refused to give him the statement without the order of District Judge, Hyderabad. A letter written by Mr. Ali Anwar Soomro to Mr. Tanveer Hashmi the witness has produced as Exh.19. It is the photostat copy of letter, the original of which might be lying in the bank. The accused had also informed him on telephone that whenever they received any cheque from Corporation they should be vigilant before encashing the same as some of their employees were blackmailing him. Ex, which is a cheque and has been produced in Case No. 113 of 1980 has been issued in the name of Mr. Manzoor Ahmad. He could not say if the amount was also given to him, as it is a bearer cheque and the amount had been given to the bearer of the cheque at the counter on 22-9-1986. R.S. Nazareth P.W.5 has deposed that he has been working as Divisional Manager in the Utility Store Corporation since 1-4-1980. He had taken over charge from Ali Soomro accused. Messrs Ibrahim Shaikh Company had checked the accounts for the year ending on 30-6-1979. It was noticed that the Auditor had asked for closing balance certificate of Saving Account No. 526 of the National Bank of Pakistan Latifabad, Hyderabad under their letter of April, 1980 dated Nil. The original statement was called for from the bank which had submitted the same duly signed and authenticated by the Manager National Bank of Pakistan. Exh.12 in this case is the same which bears the signature of the Manager, but he could not say as to who was the Manager who had signed the same. The statement did not tally with the amounts book which was being maintained in their office. Amanullah was the Assistant Accounts Officer and Incharge of the Accounts Section and was dealing with the audit party. After scrutiny of the Accounts being maintained in their office it was found that there was difference of Rs.12,500 between the statement of account sent by the National Bank of Pakistan and the accounts maintained in their office. In their account book closing balance was Rs.10,287.31, while according to statement of accounts sent by the Bank Exh.12 it was Rs.22,027.31. This Exh.12 was photostat copy of the original statement of account sent by the Manager. Exh.17, in Case No. 113 of 1980. During the scrutiny it was found that cheque bearing No.196825, dated 16-5-1979 was drawn in favour of Mr. Manzoor Alam who was the Senior Accounts Officer at the time, and was encashed by him as it was bearer cheque. The cheque Exh.5 in Case No. 113 of 1980 is the same, he has produced its photostat copy as Exh.51. According to him their cash book shows that the same cheque was issued in favour of Messrs Marketing Services Ltd. and was for Rs.32,500, and was encashed by Marketing Services Ltd., and was cross-cheque pertaining to previous payment paid to Marketing Set-vices Ltd., The cheque was issued on 16-5-1979 and the entry Exh.14 in Case No. 113 of 1980 was made on the cash book dated 16-5-1979 pertaining to the amount of Rs.3,22,500 said to have been paid to Messrs Marketing Services Ltd. But no cheque for the said amount appears to have issued as from the counterfoil of the cheque book Exh.26 in Case No. 113 of 1980 the cheque for the sum of Rs.34,672 dated 27-3-1979 in favour of Messrs Marketing Services Ltd. against Bill No.7285 dated 7-2-1979 appears to have been issued. The photo copy of the entry made in the cash book Exh.20 in Case No. 113/80 pertains to the payment. He was not working as Divisional Manager pertaining to the period when fraud was said to have been committed. He had no personal knowledge about anything pertaining to this case but audit was made during the period when he was posted as Divisional Manager. On receipt of the audit report he had lodged written complaint, again stated that during the audit was going on he lodged written complaint with the Dy. Director F.I.A. which has been produced as Exh.27 in Case No. 113/80, was the same and it was signed by him. He has produced photostat copy of the same as Ex.22. The F.I.A police had examined him. He has produced the resignation tendered by Mr. Ali Anwar Soomro Exh.23, and by Messrs Wakeel Ahmed Ex.24 and of Abdul Rashid Exh.25. Again he has stated that Exh.23 is the acceptance of the resignation tendered by Mr. Ali Anwar Soomro, by Messrs Wakeel Ahmad Exh.24, and Abdul Rashid Exh.25. According to him Exh.25 is the order regarding termination of services of Abdul Rashid Shaikh which was duly served on him when he was posted at Hyderabad, Mr. Vakeel Ahmad had been transferred and was working at Sukkur. The F.I.R was lodged when the audit was in progress and was not yet completed. He could not say how long Mr. Vakeel Ahmad was posted at Hyderabad. He had conducted departmental inquiry before lodging of the F.I.R. but he had not produced the finding of his inquiry before the police or before the Court except the F.I.R. That there was no cheque for the amount of Rs.32,500 issued from the Cheque book, but only entry was made in the cash book and documentation was manipulated to bring the two amounts together. The counterfoil shows that the cheque was issued for the amount of Rs.34,672.02 on 17-3-f979 produced as Exh.26 in case No.113/80. He could not say on what date the audit was started. He has further deposed that by conducting the enquiry he meant that he had looked into the record in order to satisfy himself if any fraud was committed but he had not recorded statement of any witness or any of the accused. That during the investigation the cash book and the cheque books had remained in the custody of the Accounts Officer. According to him, he was not Divisional Manager during the period this fraud is said to have been committed. He had no personal knowledge about anything pertaining to this case. Mohammad Bux P.W.6 had deposed that on 7-8-1980 he was posted as Assistant Mukhtiarkar and T.C.M. Hyderabad. On that day Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Inspector F.I.A. Police Hyderabad had produced accused Abdul Rasheed Shaikh before him for holding identification parade through witness Tanveer Hussain Hashmi. The accused was made to sit outside the office near the compound wall of Taluka Office. P.W. Tanveer Hussain was not able to identify the accused. He has produced the mashirnama of identification test as Exh.27. Abdul Ghafoor Inspector F.I.A . P.W.7 has deposed that- on 11-5-1980 he was Inspector F.I.A. Crime Circle, Hyderabad when he received letter No. F.I.A./HYD/2683, dated 10-5-1980 with its enclosures for registration of the case. He registered the case, the original letter Exh.27 in Case No.113/80 was the letter which he had received and incorporate-I in the F.I.A. book. Original F.I.R. Exh.44 in Case No.113/80 was same. He has produced carbon copy as Exh.30. He has also produced photostat copy of .the letter of Divisional Manager Utility Store Corporation as Exh.31. On 14-5-1980 he recorded further statement of complainant Nazarath, and recorded statement of Aman Khan. He also secured the relevant documents produced by them. He then carried on the further investigation which has been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. He has further deposed in cross-examination that it was correct that he had arrested accused Vakeel in his office at 3-00 p.m. It was correct that he had called the accused from his office and produced him before the Magistrate for recording his judicial confession. He denied the suggestion that after recording his judicial confession of the accused was being recorded. He could not say at what time the confession was recorded by the Magistrate. He could not say for how much time he waited outside the Court after producing the accused before the Magistrate for recording his judicial confession. The accused was not returned to him in his custody during the period of reflection. The confession of the accused was recorded in the Court room. He denied a suggestion that he was present when the time for reflection was given to the accused. He did not know to whom the custody of the accused was given by the Magistrate after recording his concession. He denied a suggestion that he had implicated the accused at the instance of Divisional Manager of Utility Store Corporation, Hyderabad. He has admitted that Tanveer Hussain Manager of National Bank of Pakistan Lateefabad had stated before him that the cheque amounting to Rs.22,500 was produced before -him in routine. The name of Manzoor Alam appeared in the F.I.R. The cheque was issued in the name of Manzoor Alam and was a bearer cheque. Sheikh Mohammad Din, Handwriting Expert F.I.A. P.W.8 has deposed that he is Science Graduate and had training in the identifi cation of handwriting. He had been working as handwriting expert for the last 22 years. During this period he had examined a large number of documents and had appeared as handwriting expert in various Courts of Pakistan. On 18th September, 1980 he was posted as handwriting expert at Islamabad. He received documents of this case from F.I.A., Hyderabad vide letter dated 14-9-1980 for examination, comparison and opinion. He has produced the letter in five leaves as Exh.38. He carried out the examination on and comparison of the questioned signatures/writings with the specimen signatures anal writings arrived at the following conclusion. (1) The questioned signature marked as Q/1 A on Exh.5 Q/2-B or: Exh.6, Initial Q/4-A on Exh.8 and Q/5-C Exh.10 were found similar in characteristics with the specimen signatures and initials marked as S-I to S-10 Exh.45, and routine signatures and initials marked as R-I to R-5 of Exh.48. All the formations connections, alignments, initials and final impulses etc. were found similar in all the above-mentioned signatures and initials. The comparison chart which was prepared by him in respect of the above questioned and sample signatures and initials has been produced as Exh.59. The chart contains the reasons on which he had based the abovesaid conclusion. (2) The questioned signature marked as Q/1--B as Exh.5 was found similar in characteristics with the specimen routine signatures marked as S.11 to S.20 at Exh.46 and R.6 to R.8 of Exh.48. He has also prepared the comparative chart of this questioned and specimen signatures on which he had based his conclusion. (3) The questioned writing and signature; marked as Q/2-A at Exh.46 on Exh.8, Q/5-B on Exh.10 of this case were found similar in characteristics with the specimen writing and the signatures marked as S.31 to S.40 on Exh.35 in this case and routine marked as R.11 to R.13 at Fxh.48 in case No. 113 of 1980. He had also prepared the comparison chart and has written details of said conclusion on this chart which has been produced as Exh.41. (4) The questioned signatures and writing marked at Q/2-C at Exh.6, Q/4-B at Exh.B of this case, Q/5-A at Exh.10 in this case were found similar in characteristics, with the specimen writing and signatures marked as S-41 to S-50, Exh.53 of this case. He had also prepared comparative chart of this case, signatures and writing of which have been produced as Exh.56 in case No. 113 of 1980 which contains detailed reasons for the conclusion. (5) The disputed signature marked as Q/3-B at Exh.11 was found forged with respect to the specimen signature marked as S-11 to S-20 at Exh.46 in case No. 113 of 1980. (6) The digits 4 marked as Q/7-A on Exh.12 in case No. 113 of 1980 was found to have been written after erasing original digits which however was not found decipherable. (7) The digits 04100 marked at Q/7-B on Exh.12 in case No. 113 of 1980 were also found to have been written after erasing the original digit which however were not decibherable. (8) The original digit 2 marked as Q/8-A on Exh.13 in case No: 113 of 1980 was found to have been changed from digit

4. In this connection he prepared an enlarged photo produced as Exh.57 in case No. 113 of 1980. In that connection Exh.48 in case No. 114 of 1980 was the same. It was also signed by Khalid Rasool an other handwriting expert who had also examined the documents alongwith him. Mohammad Bux retired Assistant Mukhtiarkar P.W.9 has deposed that in the year 1980 he was posted as Assistant Mukhtiarkar and T.C.M. Hyderabad Taluka, at Hyderabad. On 3-7-1980 F.I.A. Inspector Hyderabad had produced accused Abdur Rasheed Sheikh for obtaining his specimen writing and signature on blank forms of Utility Store Corporation. He obtained his specimen writings and signatures in different speed on the blank forms on 10 sheets, Exn.33 was the same. On 19-5-1980 F.I.A. Inspector, Hyderabad produces' accused Wakeel Ahmad before him for obtaining his specimen writing and signatures on printed forms of Utility Store Corporation on 10 sheets in different speed. He took the same on 10 sheets and the same have been produced as Exh.35. In cross-examination he deposed that he will not be able to identify accused Wakeel Ahmad as sufficient time had passed. He denied a suggestion that Vakeel Ahmad was not at all produced before him and he did not write or sign in his presence. As far as he remembered the name of F.I.A. Inspector was Abdul Ghafoor. He did not remember if accused Vakeel Ahmad was the only person produced before him on that day for obtaining specimen signature and writing. He did not remember the time when the accused was produced before him but it was during office hours. Mr. Mohammad Hashim Barraq Mukhtiarkar P.W.10 has deposed that on 19-5-1980 he was Mukhtiarkar and P.C.M. Taluka Hyderabad. At about 8-45 accused Wakeel Ahmad was produced by Inspector F.I.A. for recording his judicial confession. He got his handcuffs removed and asked the F.I.A. staff to vacate the premises of the Court. He then explained to the accused that he was First Class Magistrate, and he was produced before him for recording his confession. That whatever he will state it will be used as evidence against him, that he was not bound to give confession, and that he would not be handed over to F.I.A. staff. He also asked him whether he was maltreated and given any threat and promise to which he denied. He explained his person arid there was no mark of evidence on his body. At about 11-00 a.m. he told the accused to consider again and gave him time of two hours for reflection. He was made to sit in his Court under the supervision of his peon. At 1-00 p.m. he again repeated the same warnings and when the accused was prepared to give confession voluntarily, he recorded his statement verbatim in Sindhi. The accused did not know Sindhi but he was putting the questions in Urdu and translating the same in Sindhi as he did not know how to write in Urdu. After recording the statement in Sindhi. he translated to him in Urdu which he admitted to be true and correct and then obtained his signatures. He also signed the confession and recorded certificate at its end regarding his satisfaction. He has produced the confession as Exh,

40. In cross-examination he has deposed that whatever the questions were put by him to the accused were mentioned by him- in his certificate. He has denied that the accused had told him that he -was not in a position to make any statement before him and that he recorded his statement much against his wishes. He has denied that F.I.A. Inspector Abdul Ghafoor was sitting with him when he recorded the confession of the accused. He has also denied that he had written the confession while the accused was sitting outside and he was called inside later and told that nothing was written against him and his signature was obtained. He did not remember if he had done any criminal work on that day. He has admitted that accused had stated before him that he was arrested by the Police on 18-5-1980 at 3-00 p.m. After recording the confession of the accused, he handed over the accused to the F.I.A. Inspector with the warrant from his Court to the Central Jail authorities. He remanded the accused to judicial custody on the request of F.I.A. Inspector. He denied that the accused had not given confession voluntarily and that the same was recorded at the instance of Inspector Abdul Ghafoor. After close of prosecution the statements of the appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegations. Appellant Ali Anwar Soomro has admitted that the Account No.U-2/526 in National Bank of Pakistan; Hyderabad was opened by him and Allah Dino Chawro with Rs. one sac. He has further admitted that on 30-1-1979 he had informed the Manager National Bank of Pakistan that co-accused Wakeel Ahmad will operate the above account jointly with him. He has denied that he had failed to maintain the account book in respect of the above account and that he handed over a file containing vouchers and other documents to P.W. Aman Khan. He has denied that on 10-10-1979 he asked accused Vakeel Ahmad to issue cheque No.196827 in favour of accused A.R. Sheikh without mentioning the amount in the cheque as the exact balance in Account No.526 was not known. He has also denied that he had kept the cheque Exh.6 in Case No.113 of 1980 issued in favour of A.R. Sheikh with himself. He has denied that he handed over Rs.10,000 to Vakeel Ahmad and Abdur Rasheed and asked Vakeel Ahmad for preparing payment voucher for Rs.10,

000. He has denied that he had directed accused Abdul Rasheed to prepare the request form for issuance of Cheque of Rs.10,000 for purchase of merchantise which was signed by co-accused Vakeel Ahmad. He has submitted written explanation as Exhs.43 to 47 in which he has given his explanation that Rs.10,000 were paid as advance to Messrs A.R. Sheikh the Area Manager of the Division for purchase of General Merchantise for Piaro Goth Sugar Mills, being members of the purchasing committee of the Division for which a cheque request alongwith supporting documents were prepared by the accounts section as usual. That Rs.12,500 was paid to Mr. Abrar. Appellant Ahmad has denied all the allegations. With regard to his judicial confession he has stated that the confession was incorrect and was not voluntary. His signature was obtained by Inspector F.I.A. on the confession. It is written in Sindhi which he did not understand and it was not explained to him. He has admitted that signature and writings on the disputed cheque Exh.6 produced in Case No-113 of 1983 marked as Q-11/A. Bank payment voucher Exh.8 marked as Q-IV, and Cheque Request Form marked as Q/V-V were in his writing. His statement was recorded on oath in which he denied all the allegations. He has further stated that it was incorrect to suggest that no articles were purchased by him or co-accused A.R. Sheikh against the advance of Rs.10,000 vide Bank payment voucher Exh.8, Cheque Request Form Exh.10 or that the entire amount was misappropriated by them. He has given some explanation with regard to the judicial confession. He has further stated that it was incorrect to say that the sum of Rs.72,500 was drawn or received by him from the Bank against Cheque Exh.6 or was misappropriated by him alongwith co-accused. That he had resigned from the service on 19th April, 1981. In cross-examination he has denied that he has deposed falsely in order to exculpate himself and the co-accused. He has admitted that he had refunded Rs.5,000 from the amount of Rs.10,000 as advance paid to co-accused A.R. Sheikh and himself. The full name of co-accused A.R. Sheikh is Abdur Rasheed Sheikh but he did not known whether he is also known as Sheikh Abdur Rasheed. Accused Abdur Rasheed had denied the allegations in his statement on oath. He denied to have received Rs.22,500 from the bank against cheque Exh.6. He has also denied the writing and signature on Exhs.6, 8 and

10. In cross-examination he has denied that he had refunded Rs.400 out of alleged misappropriated amount. His full name is Abdur Rasheed. I have heard Messrs A.Q. Halepota Advocate, Mohammad Saleh Memon Advocate, and M. Ilyas Khan Advocate for the appellants and Mr. A . K. Jatoi Advocate for the State. . It was contended by Mr. A.Q. Halepota appearing for the appellant Ali Anwar that the explanation offered by the appellant was most reasonable and was supported by voucher Exh.8 (Bank Payment Voucher) dated 10-10-1979 and cheque Request Form Exh.10. That the appellant had written letters to the Finance Director, Utility Stores, Corporation, Islamabad and other authorities explaining the payments made to co-accused and Ibrar Ahmad, much before he was prosecuted. In this respect he has relied upon letter dated 31-12-1979 Annexure 'G'. He has also contended that a certificate issued by Zulfiqar Ahmad Divisional Manager on 24-10-1979 produced as Annexure 'F' shows that no amount was outstanding against accused Ali Anwar Soomro. That the fact that the appellant Wakil Ahmad had refunded Rs.5,000 and Abdur Rasheed Sheikh had refused Rs.400 goes a long way to show that his explanation was correct. That appellant Ali Anwar had signed the cheque as an Officer after the request was made to him. That the prosecution had failed to examine Abrar Ahmad whose evidence was material in view of the stand taken by the appellant. That even the appellant had been writing letters for adjustment much before the case was filed against him. He has further contended that the judicial confession of co-accused Wakil Ahmad was retracted and therefore it cannot be used against Ali Anwar. In support of his contention that Ali Anwar had signed the cheque in routine and had not committed any offence reliance has been placed on P L D 1957 SC (India)

393. He has also contended that the trial Court had taken into consideration the documents which were not produced in the present case and thus committed illegality. Mr. Mohammad Saleh Memon Advocate has contended that there was no evidence that the appellant had withdrawn money from the Bank and that no case was proved against his client. However, he has contended in the alternative that the appellant had suffered agony of protracted trial, and has lost his job. That he was prepared to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.4,

600. Mr. Ilyas Khan, Advocate has contended that the confession was neither true nor voluntary. That no proper warnings were given to the appellant and the confession does not show that it was read over and explained to the accused. That the appellant was Urdu knowing, while the confession was recorded in Sindhi. Lastly he has contended that even according to the prosecution, Rs.5,000 were paid by the appellant before he was prosecuted and therefore his conviction was illegal. Mr. A . K . Jatoi, learned counsel for the State has contended that appellant Ali Anwar was negligent in his duty. That the case against the appellants Abdur Rasheed and Vakeel Ahmad was proved beyond any reasonable doubt. However, he further contended that in view of the offer made by Mr. Mohammad Saleh Memon, learned counsel appearing for appellant Abdul Rasheed and the fact that Rs.5,000 were deposited by appellant Vakeel Ahmad, lenient view may be taken against them. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the R&P of the case. From the evidence which has been brought on record it has been proved that Rs.22,500 were withdrawn from Account No.526 maintained by the Utility Stores Corporation, Hyderabad, with .the National Bank of Pakistan Lateefabad Branch. It has also been proved that the cheque was issued with the signatures of appellant Ali Anwar Soomro and appellant Wakeel Ahmad, but there is no evidence as to who had actually withdrawn the amount from the Bank inasmuch as cheque was issued in the name of S.A. Rasheed and none of the witnesses appearing from the National Bank have implicated appellant Abdur Rasheed that he was the actual person who had withdrawn the above amount. In any case the fact remains that the amount of Rs.22,500 was withdrawn from the account of the Corporation, out of which Rs.5,000 were taken by accused Abdur Rasheed which is further clear from the admission made by appellant Vakeel Ahmad. in respect of cheque Exh.6, Bank Payment Voucher Exh.8 marked as Q-IV and Cheque Request Form Exh.10 marked as Q-V/B, and the fact that when asked by the Divisional Manager he refunded the amount of Rs.5,

000. But so far appellant Abdur Rasheed was concerned Rs.400 could be deducted from his pay and he failed to refund Rs.4,

600. The documents produced by appellant Ali Anwar Soomro show that Rs.10,000 were paid as an advance to appellant Abdur Rasheed Sheikh, the Area Manager of the Division, and Vakeel Ahmad Incharge Accounts Section at their request to make purchases of general merchandise for Piaro Goth Sugar Mills. However, while making his submission Mr. Mohammad Saleh Memon, learned counsel appearing for appellant Abdur Rasheed offered to deposit amount of Rs.4,600 in the Court and pleaded for leniency with regard to sentence on the ground that in fact it was at the most a case of negligence and that the appellant had suffered agony of protracted trial from the year 1980, had lost his job and is prepared to make good the loss suffered by the Corporation. I have considered the contentions of learned Counsel appearing for appellant Abdur Rasheed. It is a fact that the allegation against him is that he was paid Rs.5,000 as advance for purchase of merchandise but he showed negligence and failed to purchase the same, therefore, Rs.400 were deducted from his pay, but he failed to refund the amount of Rs.4,600 nor he purchased the goods for which the amount was paid. In Saeed Zakarya v. The State and another 1972 SCMR 118 the appellant was convicted for misappropriation of Rs.16,600 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000 but the sentence was reduced to S.I. till rising of Court on the ground that the appellant deposited Rs.17,000 in Court. In yiew of the fact that he has offered to deposit the amount of Rs.4,600 in Court, has undergone the agony of protracted trial since the year 1980, has also lost his job and had remained in custody for some time, while maintaining conviction under section 409, P.P.C. I reduce the sentence of imprisonment passed on to him to S.I. till rising of the Court. The sentence of fine Rs.5,000 is maintained. In default of payment of fine he shall suffer R.I. for three months. The fine shall be paid within one month. Rs.4,600 to be raid to the Utility Stores Corporation, Hyderabad Division, out of the amount if recovered from the appellant, and in case of default the learned trial Judge will issue warrants of arrest against him for serving out the sentence in default of payment of fine. However, there is no evidence of committing forgery and using the forged documents as genuine against this appellant Abdur Rasheed and therefore his conviction and sentence under sections 468 and 471 are hereby set aside, and he is acquitted of these charges. As far as appellant Vakeel Ahmad was concerned he had admitted his writing and signatures on cheque Exh.6, Bank Payment Voucher Exh.8 for Rs.10,000 and Cheque Request Form Exh.10. He has further admitted in cross-examination that he had refunded the amount of Rs.5,

000. It has also been admitted by P.W. Aman Khan that Rs.5,000 were refunded by appellant Vakeel Ahmad while he was posted at Sukkur. He has also suffered the agony of protracted trial from the year 1980 and has remained in jail for sometime. He has also lost his job. In view of these circumstances I am of the considered view that the ends of justice will be amply satisfied if his sentence under section 409, P.P.C. is reduced to one already undergone, I order accordingly. As far as his conviction and sentence under sections 468 and 471, Cr.P.C. is concerned prosecution has failed to prove) that he had committed forgery and he had used the forged documents as genuine. Even evidence of Mr. Mohammad Din Handwriting Expert' cannot be relied upon in this respect inasmuch as the original report has not been produced before the Court as the same was produced in Case No. 113 of 1980 and it has also been admitted by the Expert that Mr. Khalid Rasool another Handwriting Expert had also examined these documents alongwith him but he has not been examined. Moreover, the evidence of hand writing expert as merely of corroborative nature and it cannot form sole basis for conviction. I, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence of appellant Vakeel Ahmad under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C., and he is acquitted of these charges. Coming to the case of appellant Ali Anwar Soomro it is an admitted position that he was working as Divisional Manager Utility Stores Corporation Division, at' Hyderabad, in the year 1979. It wRs also not denied by him that he had issued cheque of Rs.22,500 in favour of Mr. A.R. Sheikh, and the amount was withdrawn from National Bank of Pakistan Lateefabad Branch Hyderabad, but his explanation is that he had paid Rs.10,000 to co-accused Vakeel Ahmad and S.A. Rasheed for purchasing merchandise for Piaro Goth Sugar Mills on the basis of voucher Exh.8, and when they failed to purchase the same, he wrote repeated letters to them to either refund the amount or to extend adjustment. He has further stated that he had paid Rs.125 to Abrar Ahmad Accounts Clerk and Cashier as imprest money i.e. for day to day expenditure. In this connection he has relied upon voucher dated 10-10-1979 showing advance payment to Messrs Vakeel Ahmad and S.A. Rasheed for unapproved items for purchase of merchandise goods for Piaro Goth Sugar Mills, it further shows that it was checked by the Accountant and it bears the signatures of co-accused Vakeel Ahmad and S.A. Rasheed, while appellant Ali Anwar Soomro had approved as Divisional Manager. He has also relied upon Exh.10 a Cheque Request Form for issuing of Rs.10,000 for purchase of merchandise for Dadu Sugar Mills (unapproved items). There is also a note by Ali Anwar Soomro which shows that (Accountant please get adjustment as soon as possible). The Cheque dated 10-10-1979 Exh.5 was drawn in the name of Abdur Rasheed and was signed by Ali Anwar Soomro Appellant and co-accused Vakeel Ahmad as Accounts Officer. The fact that Rs.5,000 were refunded by appellant Vakeel Ahmad, and Rs.400 were deducted from the pay of appellant Abdur Rasheed Sheikh, and the submission of Mr. Mohammad Saleh Memon learned counsel appearing for appellant Abdur Rasheed that he was prepared to deposit the amount of Rs.4,600 in Court coupled with the other documents produced by Ali Anwar Soomro including Certificate dated 24th October, 1979 Annexure 'F duly signed by Accounts Section, Area Manager, and Division Manager; Hyderabad, his letter dated 31-12-1979 Annexure 'G' letter dated 7th'. February, 1980 and other letters produced by him alongwith his statement clearly show that what he says could be possible. It was also contended by Mr. A.Q. Halepota Advocate that the vouchers were prepared by the Accounts Section and were signed by the Accountant. While Ali Anwar Soomro appellant had signed it as a routine as an officer of the Corporation, and there was nothing to suggest that he had misappropriated the amount of Rs.25,000 himself. In support of his contention he has relied upon Subhdeo Jha Utpax v. The State of Behar P L D 1957 SC (India) 393 in which it was held that:- "Accused in accordance with practice obtaining in his office, signing documents placed before him by subordinate staff, plea that he simply signed the documents on faith of regularity of the acts done in his office, the explanation offered by the accused for his action appeared reasonable and benefit of reasonable doubt was given to the accused." In the case of Jumma v. The State 1968 P Cr. L J 352 it was held that:- "reasonable possibility of a plea favourable to the accused being spelt out from the circumstances of the case the accused was given benefit of doubt and acquitted." In view of the above discussion it is clear that the plea advanced by the appellant Ali Anwar Soomro was not only probable but it warm supported by documents produced by him and the circumstances of the case. I, therefore, give him benefit of doubt, allow this appeal set aside his conviction and sentence, and acquit him of the charges. He is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. M.Y.H./A-266/K Appeal partly allowed.