1986 P Cr (PLP)

8‑A. One of the allegations against the accused is that having been armed with the said knowledge, he managed to have reversed the said entries of Rs.10,000 and Rs.15,000, totalling Rs.25,000, on 3‑1‑1976 from sundry deposit account and transferred to the credit of one Muhammad Siddiq in short term deposit account, by preparing bogus short term deposit receipt No.003729, dated 3‑1‑1976, for Rs.25,000 for seven days, at the rate of Rs.5% per annum interest in his favour and debit cash voucher, dated 20‑1‑1976, for a sum of Rs.58.21, representing allegedly accrued interest on the said sum from 3‑1‑1976 to 20‑1‑1976. Exh.P.W.10/4 consists of page 29 of the transfer book, bearing at serial No.24 the entry of transfer of the said sum of Rs.25,000 from sundry account to STD account by debiting the said sum in sundry account and crediting it in the STD account. P.W.4 Ahmad Hasan Laghari conceded in his statement that the said entry was in the hand of a clerk and not the accused. According to the police report, the clerk who had made the said entry in his own hand was Haji Abdul Ghani but the said witness who was cited as P.W. in the calendar of witnesses, was not produced and was given up by the Special Prosecutor on 16‑1‑1985 as unnecessary. P.W.4 Ahmad Hasan Laghari who had brought the original transfer book with him, no doubt, conceded that towards the end of the entries of one particular day in the transfer book, after striking the balance on both the sides, there must be the signature of an officer towards the close of the day but the entries of 3rd January, 1976, towards its close were not signed by any officer. Accused produced said Abdul Ghani in his defence as D.W.2 and besides page 29 got proved from him page 30 of the transfer book according to which balance on both credit and debit sides was equal but it was neither signed by him nor by any officer. He, however, explained that since sometimes entries have to be made in the late working hours, balance is not signed and that was so in this case and that it appeared that next morning the matter of signing of this page was missed. Abdul Ghani was produced by the accused in his defence as a defence witness. He is, therefore, bound by the said explanation given by him which shows that transfer entry at serial No.24 on preceding page No.29, Exh.P.W.4/10, showing debiting of said sum of Rs.25 000 in the sundry account and crediting of the same in the STD account was a correct entry which had been made by him in his own hand. Even otherwise, the balance of the debit and credit side on page 30 of the said transfer book was equal and, therefore, the mere fact that balance was not signed by D.W.2 Abdul Ghani or by any officer is of no consequence. P.W.4 Ahmad Hasan Laghari who had originally produced the transfer book to prove its page 29 Exh. P.W.4/10, was not cross‑ examined to show that said entry was not made in the regular course of banking business and was not a correct entry. Not even a suggestion to that effect was given to the said witness. D.W.2 Abdul Ghani, put in by the accused himself as his defence witness, never said that he had made the entry in the transfer book without having seen the relevant transfer voucher and said entry was fake. It is true that (as also stated by Ahmad Hasan Laghari) the entries in the transfer book are made on the basis of transfer voucher (in the present case debit transfer voucher debiting the sum of Rs.25,000 in the sundry account and credit transfer voucher crediting the said amount in STD account) but as stated by P.W.8 Muhammad Siraj‑ul‑Haq officer of UBL Katchery Bazar Branch, Faisalabad, none of these transfer vouchers are available in the bank and that in spite of his best efforts he had not been able to trace them out even from Accounts Department of the bank where they are kept and P.W.5 Mian Faqir Muhammad, Manager of the said branch from February, 1976 to October, 1977, stated that the contra of STDR Exh.P.W.4/5 and debit cash voucher, Exh.P.W.4/6, are missing from the branch. However, since it is not stated by all the witnesses I that the said two documents were supposed to be in the exclusive custody of the accused, the circumstance of non‑availability of the said' two vouchers in the branch only shows that neither charge for offence under section 204, P.P.C. which had been laid against the accused in the police report, dated 12‑12‑1982 nor the offence of forgery of said vouchers by the said accused is sustainable as forgery is invariably relatable to documents and no offence of forgery in relation to certain documents can be said to have been proved in the absence of said documents. I may, however, state that the said circumstances do not show that no transfer vouchers were prepared in the branch or that the relevant transfer entry in the transfer book is false The statement of Haji Abdul Ghani. P.W.2, is conclusive in that behalf and apart from that under section 114 of the Evidence Act, now section 129 of the Qanoon‑e‑Shahadat, 1984, there is a presumption of regularity of official acts and, therefore the entry in the transfer book has to be presumed to be made regularly after proper procedure, according to banking practice, had been gone through before the entry was made or in other words the said entry was made on the basis of transfer vouchers which are now missing.

9. I am also aware of the circumstance that P. W.7 Navid Safdar who was one of the two signatories of STDR Exh.P.W.4/5, and had also made entry in Exh.P.E.4/8, STD register, in respect of issuance on 3‑1‑1976 of STDR No.003729, for a sum of Rs.25,000, for seven days at five per cent interest in the name of M. Siddiq and its repayment along with interest amounting to Rs.58.21 on 20‑1‑1976, had stated that he gad handed over the block of blank STDR to accused Rana Fazal Qadeer for preparation of STDR on presentation to him of a genuine credit voucher and not transfer voucher and STDR was not issued by him on the strength of any transfer voucher and had been issued by him on the strength of a genuine credit voucher showing cash entry but that part of the statement of P.W.7 Syed Navid Safdar which is in conflict with entry in the transfer book, Exh.P.W.4/10, made in regular course of banking business which was also confirmed for its correctness by D.W.2 Haji Abdul Ghani, is not liable to be believed. I am further supported in the above conclusion of mine by the fact that in the cash book for 3‑1‑1976, certified copy Exh.D.W.2/4, put in by the defence which according to D.W.2 contained entry of transactions of the bank which took place in the branch on 3‑1‑1976 and were in the handwriting of the accused, there is no credit entry of receipt of a sum of Rs.25,000 in cash in the branch. Therefore, notwithstanding the averment of Naveed Safdar that he made the entry in STD register, Exh.P.W.4/8, on 3‑1‑1976, on the basis of cash credit voucher and not transfer voucher and notwithstanding statement of banking practice by him to the effect that STDR cannot be issued to the debit of sundry account and can be issued either against cash entry or to the debit of individuals, account and statement by P.W.9 Malik Muhammad Aslam that STDR cannot be made by transferring any sum from the sundry account, the STDR Exh.P.W.4/5 was in actual fact, made on the basis of a transfer voucher which is now missing from the record of the branch. It is notable that the statement of P.W.9 Malik Muhammad Aslam who was senior in rank to P.W.7 Naveed Safdar appears to show that the above was not an inflexible rule of the banking practice and that an STDR can be made by transferring the sum of a particular person from sundry account provided there is a specific request by the said person to that effect. It is true that no application has been produced on record showing any request from any one for transfer of said sum of Rs.25,000 from sundry account and for making of an STDR therefor, but in calculated frauds, the possibility of the forged application having first been made and then removed cannot be excluded and at any rate fraud and forgeries take place where there are deviations from normal banking practice and officers of the bank by slip, inadvertence or negligence fail to adhere strictly to the rules of banking practice. The failure of the prosecution to produce any application of any person for transfer of his sum from sundry account and even its failure to produce the application of M. Siddiq for issuance to him of STDR or its inability to produce specimen signature card of the STD account are not proof of the falsity of the prosecution version but of the circumstance that after the purpose of the criminal is served, he destroys as many of the documents and as early as he can so that, as far as possible, the links of proof connecting him with the crime be done away with. So my conclusion is that the said sum of Rs.25,000 was withdrawn from the sundry account on the basis of two untraced transfer vouchers, one debiting the said sum of Rs.25,000 to the sundry account and the other crediting the said sum in STD account and making the STDR on that basis.

10. Next comes the evidence in regard to the forgery of the STDR. P.W.5 Faqir Muhammad who was Acting Manager of Katchery Bazar Branch of UBL, Faisalabad. from February, 1976 to October, 1977, and was conversant with the handwriting of the accused had in his statement stated that the documents written and signed by the accused used to come to them in the usual course of banking business and he could identify the handwriting of the accused. He stated that the STDR, Exh.P.W.4/5, was in the handwriting of the accused. The handwriting expert also stated that on comparison made by him of the handwriting on the said STDR, Exh.P.W.4/5, with the specimen writings (duly proved in evidence to be of the accused), he had come to the conclusion that the writing on the said STDR was similar in characteristics to the characteristics in the specimen handwriting of the accused. P.W.7 Syed Navid Safdar who was Acting Manager of the branch had also in his statement stated that he had handed over the block of blank forms of STDR to the accused who was the concerned clerk to prepare the STDR and the accused had thereafter prepared the STDR, Exh.P.W.4/5. The correctness of his statement is vouchsafed by the circumstance that according to him he had noted the particulars of the said STDR in the STD register, Exh.P.W.4/8, on page 23 relating to 3‑1‑1976 and signed the STDR thereafter. The said STDR is also signed by Abrar Ahmad another officer of the bank. Furthermore, it was also stated by P.W.7 that it was duty of the accused to prepare the said STDR. However, preparation of STDR by a cleric in his own handwriting does not amount to forgery. The forgery of a document cannot be proved merely stating that certain official of the bank had prepared an STDR. It can only be proved by evidence to the effect that he had falsely represented to the officers who had to sign the said STDR that it had been validly prepared on the basis of valid supporting documents, had induced the said officers to sign the same and as a result of his false representation the said officer had signed it. In this connection, I may refer to section 463, P.P.C. and clause thirdly of section 464 thereof read with illustration (i). Section 463, P.P.C. provides that who ever makes any false document with intent to cause damage or injury to any person, or to cause any person to part with property, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 464, P.P.C. read with its clause thirdly says that a person is said to make a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign a document knowing that such person by reason of deception practised upon him, does not know the contents of the document. Illustration (i), given under the said section which is relevant to the above portion of the section says that when Z dictates a will to A and A intentionally writes down a different legatee from the legatee named by Z and by representing to 'Z that he has prepared the will according to his instructions, induces Z to sign the said will, A has committed forgery. In these circumstances it was necessary for the prosecution to show that accused Rana Fazal Qadeer had made false representation to Naveed Safdar and Abrar Ahmad and had caused them to sign the said STDR knowing that the said two officers by reason of deception practised upon them did not know the contents and nature of the said. document. However, Naveed Safdar who is the only witness of the prosecution on merits of the case relating to that part of the occurrence, stated that a credit voucher (which as already held was actually a transfer voucher) was presented to him for the issuance of an STDR for Rs.25,000 in favour of M. Siddiq on 7 days special notice and that he being the custodian of the block containing blank forms of the STDR had handed over the block of blank forms of the STDR to the accused for preparing the STDR. He has not stated that the accused himself had brought cash credit voucher to him or had falsely represented that it was a valid document or that fit. Siddiq, whose name was given in cash credit voucher (actually transfer voucher) was the actual beneficiary of the two IBCAs, the cumulative sum of Rs.25,000 of which had been lying in the sundry account of the branch and, therefore, the STDR should be made in that person's name. According to him the credit voucher (actually transfer voucher) been presented to him but he had not stated that it was the accused who had presented the same to him. If the accused had not presented to him the same, there is no question of his having misrepresented to P.W.7 Naveed Safdar that STDR was a valid document made on the basis of a transfer voucher which was presented. In these circumstances, I do not think that any case of forgery in preparation of the STDR had been made out against the accused. That, however, does not mean that the said STDR was not a false document. It was undoubtedly a false document because besides the other facts detailed above, the fact that there was neither any account opening form nor specimen signature card for STD account of Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Siddiq himself could not be produced by the accused before the investigating officer is a circumstance which shows that the said instrument was a false document but the circumstance that the accused was responsible for forging this document by making misrepresentation to Naveed Safdar and Abrar Ahmad who signed the said document for having executed it has not been proved on the record.

11. Next comes the circumstance of the debit cash voucher for a sum of Rs.58.21, Exh.P.W.4/6, having been prepared on 20‑1‑1976. It is true that this witness Navid Safdar had stated that the accused had brought this voucher to him but he did not state that the accused had made any false representation to him in that regard and caused him to sign the said document knowing that by reason of deception practised H by him he did not know the contents of the said document. In these circumstances so far as forgery in the preparation of the document is concerned that too has not been proved on the record of this case. It, however, does not show that the said debit cash voucher was not a false document. The said debit cash voucher was a false document all right but the circumstance that the accused had caused this document to be executed at the hands of Naveed Safdar and Abrar Ahmad has not been proved.

12. Next comes for consideration the all‑important circumstance of the existence of signatures reading as 'M. Siddiq' on the revere side of STDR, Exh.P.W.4/5, and debit cash voucher, Exh.P.W.4/6, which I according to the prosecution had been forged by accused Rana Fazal Qadeer himself. For that purpose the prosecution produced Sh. Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert, who deposed that on comparison of the specimens of handwriting and routine writing of the accused with the said suspected signatures 'M. Siddiq' appearing on the back of the STDR and debit cash voucher Exh.P.W.4/5 and Exh.P.W.4/6, he had come to the conclusion that the said signatures corresponded in characteristics with the specimens and routine writing of accused Rana Fazal Qadeer. He stated that he had found number of similarities between two set of documents and these points of similarity were described by him in the comparative chart Exh.P.W.6/1 in notes it his own handwriting and under his own signature. The reasons pertaining to the correspondence of the said signatures purporting to be of Muhammad Siddiq with the specimen writing of the accused which the said handwriting expert gave in his comparative chart, Exh.P.W.6/1, are that the lower portion of 'S' in Siddiq is retraced; middle portion of letter 'M' is made nearer to left part of the said letter, slaunting dot of 'i' in Siddiq, double under line in the signatures, initial impulse in 'i' bulbed formations in the signature pointing upwards. His notes on the said comparative chart further stated that besides the above, all other formations, connections, alignments, initial and final impulses, proportional size, shading, spacing, natural variations etc. were all found to be in agreement in the suspected and specimen /routine signatures/ writing of the accused. In cross‑examination, he stated that he had given no reasons in his report Exh.P.W.6/2, but had given detailed reasons in the comparative chart which he had then produced in the Court as Exh.P.W.6/1.

12. As against that, the accused produced D.W.3 A.G. Pasha, Handwriting Expert, who deposed that after making comparison of the signatures, 'M. Siddiq' made on the back of STDR, Exh.P.W.4/5, and debit cash voucher, Exh.P.W.4/6 with the specimens of writing of the accused on sheets Exh.P.W.3/11 to P.W.3/19 on the basis of photographs Exh.D.W.3/1 of the same taken by him, his opinion was that the disputed signature, 'M. Siddiq' on the reverse of documents, Exh.P.W.4/5 and Exh.P.W.4/6, were not in the handwriting of the person who had written the said specimens. He produced his report Exh.D.W.3/2. The main reason which he gave in his said report is that the specimen English signatures are natural, free smooth running, without any unnatural points of hesitation, pen pauses and tremors while the disputed signatures are unnatural, hesitating with unnatural pen lifts and tremors of forgery. Another reason which he gave is that flying flourished terminals had been observed in the above specimen signatures but blunt terminals had been noted in the disputed signatures. He also stated that the pen presentation, pen direction, pen pressure, curves, alignments, slaunts, dots and angles were different in both the sets of signatures. In cross‑examination he admitted that according to the first reason given in his report the disputed signature 'M. Siddiq' on the back of Exh.P.W.4/5 and Exh.P.W.4/6 were forged; they were unnatural with unnatural pen lifts and tremors indicating forgery. He also stated in his cross‑examination that when a man charged with forgery of signatures gives his specimens of writing, he tries to disguise his real writing but the basic characteristics of writing remain the same. He also conceded that he did not make comparison of the disputed signatures on the back of Exh.P.W.4/5 and Exh.P.W.4/6 with the admitted routine signatures on Exh.P.W.4/7 and Exh.P.W.4/10. He denied the suggestion that the characteristics of writing of M. Siddiq on the reverse of Exh.P.W.4/5 and Exh.P.W.4/6 are similar to the characteristics in specimens on sheets Exh.P.W.3/11 to Exh.P.W.3/19 and he also denied the suggestion that he was making false statement favouring the accused.

13. It may be noted that P.W.6 Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert, had not been cross‑examined at all in respect of correctness or otherwise of the reasons given by him in the comparative chart and the final opinion given by him and, therefore, the inference which arises from the said circumstance, is that the accused had accepted correctness of the reasons advanced by the said witness in his said comparative chart and the final opinion given by the said expert. In these circumstances, in my view, the accused had no reasons to produce any handwriting expert of his own when he himself had no objection to the reasons advanced and the opinion given by the said expert produced by the Prosecution. Furthermore, no cross‑examination was conducted on P.W.6 Sh. Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert, to challenge his impartiality in the opinion which he had given in this case. He was not even suggested that he was partial towards the prosecution as he was in the service of the FIA and on account of that he had given incorrect reasonings. That shows that impartiality of this witness had also been accepted by the accused. Even otherwise, P.W.6 Sh. Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert was a servant of the State of Pakistan whose pay and other emoluments were assured irrespective of the circumstance whether he gave his report and evidence in favour of or against the prosecution. He had no motive to give a false opinion to implicate the accused falsely. As against that A.G. Pasha was a person who had been paid fees to state that signatures 'M. Siddiq' on the back of M documents, Exh.P.W.4/5 and Exh.P.W.4/6, do not correspond in writing characteristics with the specimen handwriting of the accused It was held in Abhayanand v. State of Bihar AIR 1959 Pat. 328 that value of the opinion of an expert engaged by a party suffers from the defect that it is given by a remunerated witness who knows beforehand why he had been called and what the party calling him wishes him to prove and it is not improbable that he has an unconscious bias in his favour and this detracts from the weight to be attached to such witness's opinion. In this connection it is significant to note that the said expert A.G. Pasha, D.W.3, had appeared much after P.W.6, Sh. Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert, had appeared in evidence and had the advantage of looking into the reasons advanced by P.W.6 Sh. Muhammad Din for the opinion which had been given by him in the Court but he (A.G. Pasha, D.W.3) conveniently side‑tracked all those reasons and did not even make a mention of the same in his report or evidence N what to speak of negating the said reasons. Therefore, although the said witness denied the suggestion that his reports as handwriting expert are not invariably in favour of the party who engages him and pays him fees therefor, and also denied that he had made a false statement favouring the accused, the fact of the matter, in the circumstances of this case, is that in making his report and giving evidence in this case, he was partial towards his client, the accused when he gave the above opinion in this case. These weighty considera tions appear to be sufficient to reject the evidence of D.W.3 A.G. Pasha and to accept the evidence of P.W.6 Sh. Muhammad Din but, I have no intention to depend solely upon the above factors, for, that would amount to surrendering my judicial functions to P.W.6 Sh. Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert and I, therefore, proceed to scrutinize the relevant merits of the evidence of each one of the, two experts in the light of my own judgment of similarities and dissimilarities between two sets of signatures.

14. On comparison of signature 'M. Siddiq' on the back of the two documents, Exh.P.W.4/5 and Exh.P.W.4/6, with the specimen signatures 'M. Siddiq' available in the specimen sheets, Exh.P.W.3/11 to P.W.3/19, especially and the other sheets showing specimens and routine writing of the accused generally, I find that the shape of capital letter 'M' both in the specimens and the disputed signatures is exactly similar and its middle portion is undoubtedly made nearer to the left portion in most of the cases. Again the formation of capital letter 'S' in Siddiq is the same in both sets of signatures and the manner in which lower portion of the said letter is retraced to connect it with 'i' is same in both types of signatures. There is an initial impulse while writing 'i' invariably and dot on this letter is put in slaunting manner. The upper line of letter 'd' is not retraced but makes an egg‑shaped anti clockwise formation when it comes down. The word 'q' has a highly peculiar formation exclusive to the writer both in the disputed signatures and in the specimen signatures showing that both sets of signatures were made by the same person. These features of writing of the accused are also available in body-writing of credit vouchers, Exh.P.W.4/3 and Exh.P.W.4/4, STDR, Exh.P.W.4/5, and debit cash voucher, Exh.P.W.4/6, which were admitted by the accused to be in his handwriting and can, therefore, be considered now to constitute the routine writing of the accused too. The similarities of these basic characteristics of writing in the said set of signatures, namely, disputed signatures, specimen signatures in specimen sheets and routine writing of the accused on said admitted documents are so clear, so pronounced and striking that I have no doubt left in my mind that maker of the disputed signatures on the back of the said documents was the same person as had furnished the specimen signatures 'M. Siddiq' and his specimen writings and had prepared the said admitted documents. It is said that general features of handwriting like slant; pen pressure et c. are not reliable for establishing identity but the presence or otherwise of peculiar writing habits or idiosyncrasies are features which have a decisive importance in that regard. Reference is invited in this connection to Jewan Prahash v. State of Maharshtra I L R 1974 Bom. 334 wherein it was so held. These peculiarities are particularly available in the formation of letter 'd' and 'q' not only in disputed and specimen signatures but also in the body writing of the said admitted documents, Exh.P.W.4/3 to Exh.P.W.4/6. It is true that the letter 'q' in each of the two signatures 'M. Siddiq' on the back of debit voucher Exh.P.E.4/6 stands written as bit differently but that is only an attempt at disguisement which failed and could not conceal the real way of writing of the letter 'q' in a most peculiar manner and that basic writing trait remained the same. I also find that line quality, slaunt, alignment, pen pressure, shading etc. in the disputed signatures are the same as in the specimen signatures/routine writings and on the body writing of documents, Exh.P.W.4/3 and Exh.P.W.4/6, admittedly in the writing of the accused. Thus on my own scrutiny of all the relevant documents, I think that the reasons given by Sh. Muhammad Din. Handwriting Expert are correct and his opinion given in evidence is unexceptionable.

15. I have also considered the reasons given by A.G. Pasha, D.W.3, and find that his opinion is not borne out from the actual position on the record. There are absolutely no tremors and no unnatural pen lifts in making signature 'M. Siddiq' on the reverse sides of Exh.P.W.4/5 and Exh.P.W.4/6 and it is visible to the naked eye that the said signatures were made by their author with the same ease and skill as the specimens. There is, no doubt, some difference in formation of letter 'q' in signature 'M. Siddiq' on the back of the cash debit voucher, Exh. P.W.4/6, but the basic characteristics of the scribe, drawing a line downwards before completing initial anti‑clockwise circle representing earlier portion of letter 'q' and thus making a highly peculiar formation of 'q' continued to remain the same. The formation of letter 'q' in the disputed signature on the back of STDR, Exh.P.W.4/5, which was the main document in the case contained absolutely same idiosyncrasy of the writer as is available in specimens and admitted signatures/ writing of the accused in the documents admittedly written in the hand of the accused. The said signatures on the reverse' of said two documents appear clearly to correspond in characteristics with specimens and routine admitted writing of the accused and do not disclose any basic variations may be noted that D.W.3 A.G. Pasha's evidence was only in general terms. He did not state any specific variations between two types of the writing. He did not name even a single difference in writing characteristics between the two writings either in his report or in his evidence to enable this Court to judge the correctness or otherwise of his assertion. As a matter of fact reasons given by him are self contradictory because he had earlier stated in his report that the specimens of signature 'M. Siddiq' had been written with perfect ease, without any hesitation or unnatural pen lifts while the disputed signatures were written hesitatingly and contained tremors and unnatural pen lifts but later on he had stated in his report that the letters of word 'M. Siddiq' had been written with forced stress strokes in the specimen signatures. I have also not found any basic difference in the terminal in the two different sets of signatures as stated by D.W.3 A.G. Pasha in his report. In any way, it is astonishing to note that he did not find even a single point of similarity between the specimen and suspected signatures as against many found by P.W.6 Sh. Muhammad Din and it is all the more astonishing that he never proceeded to show that the said similarities found by P.W.6 Sh. Muhammad Din were in fact not similarities and had absolutely no effect on the merits of the case. The inability of this witness to attend to these considerations of material importance which called for his attention impinges seriously upon the soundness of the opinion held by him to the effect that the signature 'M. Siddiq' on the back of the said two documents do not correspond with specimen handwriting of the accused. I do not, therefore, think that the report of A.G. Pasha is consistent with actual position on the record and, accordingly reject his evidence and agree with the evidence of P.W.6 Sh. Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert and come to the conclusion that the signatures 'M. Siddiq' made once on the back of STDR, Exh.P.W.4/5, and twice on the back of cash debit voucher, Exh.P.W.4/6, had been made by the accused in his own handwriting.

16. Joined to the above, is the important phenomena of the existence of the signature of the accused on the back of the said two documents for attestation of the signatures of M. Siddiq'. The circumstance that the said attesting signatures on the reverse of the said documents are of Rana Fazal Qadeer had been proved by P.W.7 Naveed Safdar, who has duly proved the source of his acquaintance with the signature of the accused in accordance with explanation appended to section 47 of the Evidence Act, 1872 now section 61 of the Qanoon‑e‑Shahadat, 1984. He has stated that he had in his own turn verified the genuineness of the attesting signatures of Rana Fazal Qadeer by appending his own signatures thereunder. He stated that as Acting Manager, it is part of his duty to verify whether the STDR was duly signed by the person in whose favour it had been issued or not when the STDR was presented for payment and he had for that reason looked into the circumstance whether on the back of the STDR the beneficiary M. Siddiq's signature was there or not and found that it was verified by Rana Fazal Qadeer with his own signature which he (the witness) fully identified, he made endorsement on the STDR issue register of the date of payment as 20‑1‑1976 and other particulars and verified the signature of Rana Fazal Qadeer in red ink on the back of the STDR, Exh. P.W.4/5. Similar is his statement as regards debit cash voucher, Exh.P.W.4/6. The truth of the statement of this witness is assured by the existence of his signatures on the back of the said STDR 9 debit cash voucher under the signature of the accused Rana Fazal Qadeer. P.W.9 Malik Muhammad Aslam has also in the same circumstances identified the said signature of the accused Rana Fazal Qadeer which were made for attestation of the signatures 'M. Siddiq' on the back of the said documents. It. therefore, stands proved that Rana Fazal Qadeer had attested the signatures ''M. Siddiq'. Accused Rana Fazal Qadeer also admitted in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. that he had put his signatures on the back of the said two documents to attest the signature 'M. Siddiq'. Thus the circumstance of the accused having attested with his own signature, the signatures 'M. Siddiq' on the reverse side of STDR, Exh. P.W.4/5 and cash debit voucher, Exh.P.W.4/6, stands proved to the hilt.

17. Though the accused had not denied that he had appended his signature on the back of the said STDR cash debit voucher for attesting the signatures of Muhammad Siddiq he had in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. stated that it was Naveed Safdar who had asked him to do so and he had attested the signature of Muhammad Siddiq on the instructions of Naveed Safdar who was the Acting Manager of his branch. His said statement, however, hardly merits credence. He was accounts clerk in the branch and was fully educated and grown up person who could distinguish between right and wrong and knew which orders of his officers were to be obeyed and which could not be obeyed except at his own risk and he could not have put his liberty to jeopardy by appending his signature to the signature of a person whom he never met and never knew just on the asking of Naveed Safdar. Even otherwise apart from this bare averment of his, nothing was put on record to prove that in fact Naveed Safdar had asked him to put his signature on the back of the said two instruments. No connection of Naveed Safdar with any Muhammad Siddiq and no motive on his part' to make that order to the accused has been proved on record. Not even a suggestion was put to Naveed Safdar or any other witness in that regard. Therefore, this bald unsupported and uncorroborated assertion of the accused appears to be false and is just an afterthought. It is thus clear that the act of attestation of the signature 'M. Siddiq' on the reverse of documents, Exh.P.W.4/5 and Exh.P.W.4/6, by the accused by putting his own attesting signature; thereto was altogether voluntary on his part and had been performed by him wholly of his own accord and of his own free will without an3 pressure on him from any quarter.

18. By appending his attesting signatures on the back of the said two documents the accused had represented to the bank that said beneficiary of S.T.D.R. and cash debit voucher for interest amount was fully known to him and was a genuine living person and had committed himself to the position that he would be able to produce him in the branch as and when required. The accused, however, it obvious, failed even to point out the whereabouts of the said Muhammad Siddiq to the bank authorities who were, therefore, compelled to refer the matter to police. P.W. 11 Aqeel Ahmad Qureshi S.I, F.I.A., the Investigating Officer in this case, stated that he had tried to trace out Muhammad Siddiq in whose name the S.T.D.R. and cash credit voucher Exh. P.W. 4/5. and Exh. P.W.4/6 had been made but he could no trace out any such person. He further deposed that he had given a opportunity to accused Rana Fazal Qadeer to produce Muhammad Siddiq but he (the accused) had not been able to produce before him an such person with the said name and his conclusion, therefore, was that Muhammad Siddiq was a non‑existent fictitious person. This par of the statement of the said Investigating Officer was not subjected to any cross‑examination and, therefore, the accused must be deemed to have accepted the correctness of the said aspect of evidence of this witness too. No suggestion was given even to any other prosecution witness that Muhammad Siddiq was a living person. In the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. the accused was asked that it was in evidence that Muhammad Siddiq was a fictitious person and what was his explanation therefore and he replied that he could not say anything about that matter and thus failed to explain this incriminating evidence against him. The accused had also opportunity to produce said Muhammad Siddiq during the trial but he never produced him in this Court. He did not even produce any defence witness to state that Muhammad Siddiq was not a fictitious person. It thus stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt that Muhammad Siddiq, beneficiary of S.T.D.R. Exh. P.W.4/5 and cash debit voucher, Exh. P.W.4/6, was a non‑existent fictitious person and the accused had failed to produce the said person either before the bank authorities and the police or before this Court.

19. Thus the statement of P.W. 6 Sh. Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert, to the effect that the signatures 'M. Siddiq' on the back of the S.T.D.R., Exh. P.W. 4/5, and cash debit voucher, Exh. P.W. 4/6. is not a solitary and isolated piece of evidence. It is duly corroborated by the proved circumstances of Muhammad Siddiq being a non‑existent and fictitious person and further by failure of the accused to produce Muhammad Siddiq (whose signature he had attested) when tie ought to have produced him. Attestation of a signature is made in order to verify the genuineness of a signature which in turn connotes that the said signature is of a living existing person. In attesting the genuineness of signature, 'M. Siddiq', the accused by implication made representation to the bank that he knew the man who had made the said signatures and would be able to produce him or at least to tell his whereabouts. But he failed to do either of the two things. If. therefore, he had failed either to produce him or point out his place of residence, the inference which can be drawn is that he himself had forged signature 'M. Siddiq' on the reverse of the said two documents. If the opinion of P.W. 6 handwriting expert, was incorrect as claimed by the accused, he should have produced Muhammad Siddiq himself to state that it was not the accused but he (Muhammad Siddiq) himself who had signed the said documents. The proved circumstance that the accused had not been able to produce Muhammad Siddiq is a testimony to the fact that it was the accused himself who had made signatures "M. Siddiq" on the back of said documents. Furthermore, the admitted circumstance that Muhammad Siddiq was untraceable and was a fictitious person further shows that accused Rana Fazal Qadeer had made the signatures of said fictitious person on the back of the said two documents. The said evidence of the said expert is further supported by the circumstance that accused Rana Fazal Qadeer fully knew that the sum of Rs.25,000 was lying in the sundry account on account of two IBCAs whose beneficiary was not known. The fact that he himself had put the sums of the two IBCAs in sundry account is established by the admitted and proved circumstance of preparation by him of two transfer vouchers, Exh. P.W. 4/3 and Exh. P.W. 4/4. Although he has not been proved to have misrepresented the facts and thereby caused Naveed Safdar and Abrar Ahmad to append their signatures for due execution of the STDR which he had prepared in his own hand, it is quite consistent with the probabilities of the case to think that the accused knew that the said sum of Rs.25,000 of which STDR was being prepared was made up of two said sums of two IBCAs. According to P.W. 7 Naveed Safdar accused himself had brought to him the cash credit voucher for interest amount of Rs.58.21 for the period from 3‑1‑1976 to 21‑1‑1576 the for getting his signatures and that of Abrar Ahmad co‑signatory for execution of the said document. He was the concerned Clerk whose the it was to prepare STDR and cash debit voucher as deposed to by duty 5 Mian Faqir Muhammad and P.W‑7 Neveed Safdar He could not. P.W that the in the circumstances have failed to have gained knowledge said sum of ms.25,000 was in respect of two IBCAs whose beneficiaries untraced and it was therefore, he alone who could have made were on the back of STDR, M . Siddiq' Exh .P.W. R /5 and cash signatures of voucher. Exh.P.W.416 and attested the said signatures by debit din his own signatures thereto. The said circumstances also append rate the said evidence of the sad handwriting expert. It thus corroborate stands proved to the hilt that it was the accused who had made the said signatures reading as 'M. Siddiq' on the reverse of documents, Exh.P.W.4/5 and Exh.P.W.4/6.

20. It is notable in this connection that the accused had in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. stated (held above to have been done falsely) that it was on the direction of Naveed Safdar, Acting Manager that he had appended his signature in attestation of signature 'M. Siddiq' on the said two documents, but he did not say so when he was asked that it was in evidence of P.H.6 Sh. Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert read with his report Exh.P.W.6/2 and comparative chart, Exh.P.W.6/1 that the said signatures were similar in characteristics to specimen signatures made by him on the specimen sheets etc. He only stated that that statement was incorrect which claim of his has itself been proved to be false it is clear, therefore, that the act of making of said signatures by the accused was the act of the accused himself, and not at the instance of any body else as it had not been attributed by him to any one else.

21. The object of accused Rana Fazal Qadeer in making false and fictitious signatures, M. Siddiq on the back 'of said documents way clearly dishonest, namely, to obtain monetary benefit of cumulative sun of Rs.25,058.21 and cause corresponding loss to the bank for the said sum. Similarly, the intention of accused Dana Fazal Qadeer in attesting the said false signatures was clearly to lull the bank authorities into false sleep so that they may not be able to detect that fraud was between committed on the bank. The purpose of the accused was obviously to cheat and defraud the bank.

22. The act of the accused in making a false signature 'M. Siddiq in his own handwriting of s non‑existent and fictitious person on the back of the said two documents, in my opinion, amounts to making of false document as made out from the following portion of section 464 P.P.C:‑-- Section 464: A person is said to make a false document: First who dishonestly or fraudulently signs a part of the document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such person of the document was signed by the person by whom he knob that it was not signed. Explanation 2:‑-The making of a false document in the name of fictitious person intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person may amount to forgery. Accused Rana Fazal Qadeer dishonestly and even fraudulently, made false signature 'M.Siddiq' of one Muhammad Siddiq who was a fictitious nonexistent person, on the back of the said two documents with the intention of causing it to be believed that the said signatures were made by real Muhammad Siddiq by whom he knew that the said signatures had not been made. Clearly, therefore, in. making the said false signatures in his own hand, he had made false documents and committed forgery as defined in section 463, P.P.C. Further STDR, Exh.P.W.4/5, and cash credit voucher, Exh.P.W.4/6, were valuable securities as defined in section 30, P.P.C. or at any rate documents which gave authority to officers of the bank to deliver money and gave authority to fictitious beneficiary of the accused to receive the principal sum on the STDR and its interest on cash credit voucher and the accused committed forgery of said documents. His said act stands covered by section 467, P.P.C., relevant portion of which runs as below:‑ Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a document which purports to give authority to any person to receive the principal or interest thereon or to deliver any money shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. In my opinion, therefore, by making the said signatures in his own handwriting, the accused committed the offence under section 467, P. P. C.

23. Apart from the above, there is other‑evidence on record showing that accused Rana Fazal Qadeer had committed offence under section 467, P.P.C. P.W.7 Naveed Safdar had stated that when on 20‑1‑1976, STDR, Exh.P.W.4/5, had been presented to him for passing it/cancelling it for payment on finding that signature 'M.Siddiq' of the beneficiary Muhammad Siddiq was there on it and it was verified by Rana Fazal Qadeer with his own signatures, he had made entries in respect of it in the STD register. In his statement, he did not specifically state that on seeing the said attesting signature of the accused he had also signed the same for cancelling it/passing it for payment but it is in the statement of P.W.9 Malik Muhammad Aslam that STDR had been cancelled by Naveed Safdar for payment as it bore his signature and that of Abrar Ahmad for cancelling it. Naveed Safdar, therefore, signed the said instrument for cancelling it/passing it for payment on the implied representation of the accused made by him through his attesting signatures to effect that signature 'M. Siddiq' was signature of a genuine person. As regards cash debit voucher, Exh.P.W.4/6, P.W.7 Naveed Safdar, stated that it was brought to him by the accused himself and he had on seeing it found that signature 'M.Siddiq' on its back was attested by the accused and he, therefore, signed the said documents too in token of his having cancelled /passed it for payment. It is common knowledge that bank officers check up the signatures of the beneficiary and only on being satisfied with the genuineness of the same, pass it for payment. The accused thus dishonestly and fraudulently by misrepresenting by means of his attestation that signature 'M.Siddiq' was of a genuine person, caused Naveed Safdar and Abrar Ahmad to sign the said documents for passing them for payment knowing that by reason of deception practised upon them Naveed Safdar and Abrar Ahmad did not know that the said document was not signed by any genuine living person. The said act of the accused is covered by the offence of forgery as defined in section 463, P.P.C. read with clause thirdly of section 464, P.P.C. therefore, in committing the said forgery in part of STDR, EXh.P.W.4/5, and debit cash voucher, Exh.P.W.4/6, the accused committed offence under section 467, P.P.C.

24. However, this is not all. Prosecution has produced further evidence on record to show that it was the accused who had received the payment of a cumulative sum of Rs.25,058.21. P.W.7 Naveed Safdar had stated in his statement, the STDR, Exh.P.W.4/4 and debit cash voucher, Exh.P.W.4/6, both show that they had been en-cashed and on the face of the STDR there is signature of Muhammad Aslam Cashier and on the back of the said STDR, there is description of the denomination of the notes paid by him to make the sum of Rs.25,000 and in addition to that on the back of the said STDR Muhammad Islam Cashier had mentioned the name of Rana Fazal Qadeer for his reference as to who had taken the payment. Now when Naveed Safdar said so, he meant to say that Muhammad Aslam Cashier had written the denomination of the notes paid and the name of Rana Fazal Qadeer in his own hand on the back of the STDR, Exh.P.W.4/5 and he identified the writings on STDR to be in the hand of Muhammad Aslam Cashier. It is true that P.W.7 Naveed Safdar did not say in so many words that he could identify the handwriting of the accused but as held by me in my judgment passed on 30‑11‑1985 in State v. Khan Muhammad Case No. 5/84 of my Court clear implication of the above sentences spoken by Naveed Safdar was that he was capable of identifying the writing of the accused and. in the circumstance of Naveed Safdar, Acting Manager of the branch, being the immediate officer of Muhammad Aslam Cashier and the said cashier being his direct subordinate there is intrinsic evidence of the fact that he (Naveed Safdar) could identify the handwriting of Muhammad Aslam Cashier as it can be visualized without any difficulty, that the said witness had seen Muhammad Aslam Cashier write digits and words number of tunes' within his view or at any rate received documents written by Muhammad Aslam Cashier submitted to him usually in the ordinary course of business of the bank enabling the said witness to identify the handwriting of Muhammad Aslam Cashier. Therefore, the mere ‑fact that this witness did not say that he could identify the writing of Muhammad Aslam Cashier is of no material consequence. I am also aware that Naveed Safdar did not also state his source of acquaintance with the handwriting of Muhammad Aslam Cashier in accordance with explanation appended to section 47 of the Evidence Act, 1.872, now section 61 of the Qanoon‑e‑Shahadat, 1984, but as held by me in my above‑quoted judgment for which I had relied inter alia upon Shankarrao Gaudahar v. Ramji Harjivan I L R 28 Bom. 58, Mahanth Jagdish Dass and others v. The Emperor A I R 1938 Pat. 497 &t page 502 and Muhammad Sadiq Javed v. The State P L D 1969 W.P. Pesh. 12 it is for the defence counsel to cross‑examine a witness in respect of his source of acquaintance with the handwriting of a person in a case he contests his capacity to identify his handwriting and in the absence of any such cross‑examination his evidence of identification is to be deemed to be correct and unexceptional. In the present case, this portion of statement of this witness was not subjected to any cross‑examination whatsoever. In my opinion, therefore, it is proved that writing of digits in respect of denomination of notes paid to make the sum of Rs.25,000 and writing of name Rana Fazal Qadeer on the STDR have been proved to be in the handwriting of Muhammad Aslam Cashier. Now it is a normal banking practice that cashiers write the name of actual recipient of money when payee/ beneficiary named in the STDR does not appear before them and an STDR bearing a beneficiary's signature for his having received the payment, duly attested by an employee of the bank, is presented to them by some other person or by the said employee of the bank. Seen in t‑he light of this practice the existence of the name of the accused in the handwriting of. Muhammad Aslam Cashier is testimony to the fact that the accused received from Muhammad Aslam Cashier the said "sum of Rs.25,000 on 20‑1‑1976: The debit cash voucher for interest amount of Rs.58.21, was also encashed on the same day viz. 20‑1‑1976 as shown in entry in STD register and payment stamp affixed on the said document too and it is, therefore, reasonable to think that it was the accused who had received payment of said sum of Rs.58.21 also on the said date. Thus both the sums totalling Rs.25,058.21 are proved by this evidence to have been received by the accused. I am supported in this finding of mine by the circumstance that otherwise a fictitious person whom the accused him self has been unable to produce could ‑ not I have possibly appeared before the said cashier and received the said sums of money and the only inference which can be drawn from the circumstances of the case is that the accused who had forged signatures of said fictitious person and had attested the same to be genuine had received the said sums from the cashier. In my opinion, therefore, it has also been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the accused had received from the branch the said sums of Rs.25.,000 and Rs.58.21 on the basis of the STDR, Exh.P.W.4/5, and debit cash voucher, Exh.P.W.4/5.

25. It is true that Muhammad Aslam Cashier has not been produced in this case but his non‑production would have affected the prosecution case adversely only if no valid reason had been given for his non‑production: It is, however, given in the statement, dated 2‑2‑1985 of learned Special Prosecutor that the said witness was given up by him as report on the process issued for procuring attendance of said witness in this Court; was that, he had gone to France and would not be available to give evidence in this case. It is clear, therefore, that the prosecution could not have produced this witness without such delay in the conclusion of the trial, and without incurring such expenses for his production in this Court as were unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on account of non‑production of this witness. Thus the inability of the prosecution to produce the witness in the Court does not retract from the correctness of my finding that the accused Rana Fazal Qadeer had received the sum of Rs.25,058.21 from the branch on 20‑1‑1976 on the basis of said two documents.

26. The object of the accused Rana Fazal Qadeer in getting the said sum of Rs.25,058.21 from the branch was to cause wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to himself and was thus dishonest. It was also fraudulent as the said sum had been obtained by him by deception. He had obviously brought the said sum to his own use and had misappropriated the same. He was an employee of the bank in his capacity as an account clerk. According to explanation to section 161, P.P.C., added by Prevention of Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act (13 of 1977) 'public servant' includes an employee of any corporation or any other body of organization, set up, controlled or administered by, or under the authority of the Federal Government. United Bank Limited which is a corporate body, comes after nationalisation, in the ownership of the Government and is at any rate corporation controlled and administered by or under the authority of the Federal Government. The accused was, therefore, a 'public servant'. He had also dominion over the funds‑of the bank. He had dishonestly and fraudulently received and misappropriated the sum of Rs.25,058.21 in his capacity as a public servant and had thus committed criminal breach of trust‑which is liable to be punished under section 409, P.P.C.

27. The upshot of the above discussion is that the accused is guilty of the offences under sections 467 and 409, P.P.C. and I convict him of the said two offences.

28. It has been laid down in subsection (2) of section 6 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Court) Ordinance, 1984., which has created this Special Court that for the purposes of this Ordinance, the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, specified in the Second Schedule shall have effect subject to modifications specified therein. The said Second Schedule lays down that in sections 409 and 467, P.P.C. for the words 'may extend to' the Words 'shall not be less than 7 year's and not more than' shall be substituted. This provision has to be kept in mind by this Court while passing the sentences in this case. Furthermore, it is laid down in subsection (3) of section 6 of the said Ordinance that where a Special Court passes a sentence of fine, whether in addition to arty other punishment or not, and finds the offence to have been committed in respect of a specified amount, the said fine shall not be less than twice the said amount. It is obvious that in this case both the offences of which the accused has been convicted were committed in respect of a sum of Rs.25,058.21 and, therefore, the fine to be imposed is not to be less than twice the laid amount in each‑ case. Therefore, for offence under section 467, P.P.C. I sentence the accused to R.I. for 7 (seven) years and a fine of Rs.40,000 (Rupees sixty thousand only) and in default of payment of said fine to R.I. for a further period of one year and for offence under section 409, P.P.C. to R.I. for 8 (eight) years and a fine of Rs.70,000 (Rupees seventy thousand only) and in default of payment of said fine to R,I. for a further period of 2 (two) years. The two 'sentences shall run concurrently. Accused was granted pre‑arrest bail in this case by Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. He has never remained in detention in this case. There is, therefore, no question of granting him benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. Out of the fine, .if recovered, a sum of Rs.30,000 (Thirty thousand only) shall be paid .to United Bank Limited Kutchery Bazar Branch, Faisalabad, and remaining sum shall stand confiscated to the state. S.A. ‑‑‑‑‑ Order accordingly.