1988 P Cr (PLP)

(3) Comparison of the signatures on the draft, Exh. 4/A, and advice Exh. 4/B, with the signatures of P.Ws. Masood and Matloob Hussain showing such disparity between the signatures that no reasonable person could say that the two sets of signatures are of the same person. (4) That the cancellation of the demand draft by the Manager Athar Ansari and Shafiq Alam was on the basis of the verification of the signature on the demand draft by the accused who has signed at the foot of the signatures of the drawers. (5) That the payment by the cashier on the demand draft was made on the basis of the signature of the accused verifying the identity of the payee. (6) That according to the handwriting expert not only the body of the writing on credit advice, Exh. 4/B, but also the signature of Ashfaq Ali on the demand draft, .Exh. 4/A, tallies with the writing of accused Aijaz Ahmed. (7) That the form and size of the credit advice, Exh.. 4/A, is different from the form and size which was used in 1981 when it was received by the Hotel Intercontinental Branch. (8) That Shakeel Ahmed's evidence regarding his verifying the signature of Ashfaq Ali cannot be relied upon in view of his earlier evidence that he had never gone to see the accused at Hotel Intercontinental Branch. The points which arise for determination in this case are:-- (a) Whether the credit advice, Exh.4/B, and demand draft, Exh. 4/A, are forged? (2) Whether payment on the forged demand draft was made by Hotel Intercontinental Branch to Ashfaq Ali? (3) Whether the accused verified the signatures of Ashfaq Al i and also of the drawers of the demand draft , Exh. 4/A? (4) Whether the accused verified the said signature knowing or having reason to believe that signatures of the drawers on the demand draft Exh. 4/ A were forged and in fact the demand draft Exh. 4/A was a forged document? (5) Whether the accused abetted Ashfaq Ali in using a forged document and dishonestly obtaining an amount of Rs.1,42,000 from the Hotel Intercontinental Branch on the basis of such forged document? My finding on the above points and the reasons therefor are as under:-- On the first three points there appears to be no controversy. I have already referred to the evidence of P.Ws Masood (the then Manager of the Jamil Chowk Samundri Branch) and P.W. Matloob Hussain (the then officer at the Jamil Chowk Samundri Branch), who have strongly denied that the signatures on the demand draft Exh. 4/A are theirs and have further stated that the demand draft in question had never been issued from, their branch. They are strongly supported by two other pieces of evidence. The first is production by P.W. Abdul Rashid Ansari. Manager of the West Wharf Branch, of the demand draft Exh. 7/B which bears identical number as of the demand draft, Exh. 4/A. The demand draft Exh. 7/B. was issued on 3-5-1977 in favour of M/s Zafreen Enterprises Peshawar. He has also produced photostat copy of the counter foil of the said demand draft, Exh. 7/A, which bears the same printed number as the demand draft. The second piece of evidence in support of this point is the fact that the last number, which is written in hand on the demand draft Exh. 4/A, is number 6, whereas according to the evidence of Manager Masood and the T D Message, Exh. 9/A, sent by the Jamil Chowk Samundri Branch, only two demand drafts, both in favour of Muhammad Riaz, were issued in the whole of vear 1985. It is thus clear that the demand draft, Exh. 4/A, which shows that it was the 6th demand draft sent in that year, could not have been issued from the Jamil Chowk Samundri Branch and is clearly a forged document. Similar is the case of the credit advice, Exh. 4/B, regarding which both Muhammad Masood and Matloob Hussain have testified that the signatures thereon are forged and such advice was never sent from the Jamil Chowk Samundri Branch. It is also not disputed that payment on the demand draft, Exh. 4/A, was made. P.W. Abdullah Soomar, who was the paying cashier at the Hotel Intercontinental Branch of U.B.L. at the relevant time, has testified that he had made payment on the demand draft, Exh. 4/A, to Ashfaq Ali after the demand draft had been duly cancelled by two officers of the branch and the signature of the payee, Ashfaq Ali, had been identified by accused Aijaz Ahmad, whose signature was known to him. Similarly there is no controversy on the point that the signature on the face of the demand draft, Exh. 4/A, identifying the signature of the drawers, as also on the reverse of the demand draft identifying the payee, are of the accused. As many as three witnesses, namely P.Ws. Shafiq Alam Farooqi and cashier Abdullah Soomar as well as the action of the accused in verifying the signatures of the two drawers on the demand draft, Exh. 4/A, cannot simply be characterised as the mere negligence on the part of the accused in the performance of an important duty. In my view, the only conclusion which can be drawn in the circumstances is that the accused had reason to believe that the signatures on Exh. 4/A were forged. The accused, in view of the fact that he had also verified the signature of .the payee should have been extra circumspect and' the only conclusion that can be drawn in circumstances of the case and in view of the complete difference between the signatures appearing on the face of Exh. 4/A and the specimen signatures Exh. 5/A and 6/A is that the accused had reason to believe that the signatures on Exh. 4/A were forged and were not of the officers of the Jamil Chowk Samundri Branch. This conclusion finds further support from the evidence of the Hand Writing Expert who has opined that the writing on the advice Exh. 4/B, allegedly from the Jamil Chowk Samundri Branch to the Hotel Intercontinental Branch, which in fact is a forged document, is similar in every characteristic with the handwriting of the accused. The handwriting Expert Kishwar Kayani has specified the points of similarities in the enlarged photographs of the disputed and admitted writings, Exh. 16/A, and has stated that' there was no point of dis-similarity. The evidence of the handwriting expert thus lends support to the other evidence clearly indicating that the accused had reason to believe that the demand draft Exh. 4/A is a forged document. By verifying the forged signatures of the drawers of demand draft, Exh. 4/A, the accused clearly aided and abetted, Ashfaq Ali, the payee of the demand draft whose signature was also verified by him by signing on the reverse of the demand draft, after the payee's signature had also been verified by D.W. Shakeel Ahmed and thereby allowed an amount of Rs.1,42,000 to be dishonestly and fraudulently drawn from the Hotel Intercontinental Branch and the said amount to be misappropriated. For the reasons discussed by me above I hold the accused guilty of offences under section 403, 420 and 471, P.P.C. read with section 109, P.P.C. The offence was committed as far back as in the year 1981, much before the promulgation of Ordinance IX of 1984 whereby enhanced sentences were provided for offences committed in respect of banks, including provision made for imposing fines of not less than double the amount which was misappropriated or embezzled. Accordingly the provisions of the said Ordinance would not be applicable to the case of this accused. Keeping in view the long period that has elapsed since the commission of the offence for which the accused has been tried and the further fact that the main culprit is absconding and the probability is that he was the principal beneficiary of the fraud committed in this case as also the other circumstances of the case, including the fact that the accused is an educated person, I would impose on the accused in respect of each of the offences under sections 403, 420 and 471 read with 109 P.P.C. R.I. for 3 months. I would further impose a fine of Rs.50,000 on the accused in respect of the offence under sections '471 read with 109, P.P.C. In default of the payment of fine, accused will undergo further R.I. for 3 months. The substantive sentences of 3 months awarded to the accused under each of the offence under section 403, 420 and 471 read with 109, P.P.C. shall run concurrently while the sentence in default of payment of the fine under section 471 read with 109 shall run consecutively. The accused is at present on bail. His bail is cancelled. He is remanded to judicial custody to serve out the sentences awarded to him by this judgment. M. Y. H./17-SP. B.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Accused convicted.