1994 P Cr (PLP)

Azmat and Ghulam Mohiuddin were examined as defence witnesses by appellant Muhammad Hayat and Ali Muhammad and Kamaluddin by appellant Hidayatullah. After assessment of the evidence learned trial Court, in para 78 of the impugned judgment, observed as follows: "There are certain facts which are either not disputed or which stand proved. These are as under: (1) There was shortage of 506 sheets of standard size and 5 sheets of super size of blank bank notes in the warehouse of the P.S.P.C. (2) This shortage was first detected in March/April, 1991, that is, one month before the raid of the F.IA. by the Inspection Committee of P.S.P.C. vide in report Exh.19/3 on which no action was taken by the Management of the P.S.P.C. (3) Major Perwaiz Fazal was Deputy Security Controller and Incharge of this Warehouse at the relevant time, Nabi Sher was Stock Assistant and immediate incharge of the Warehouse. Tariq Altaf and Sahib Khan were workers in this Warehouse. (4)??????? Perwaiz Fazal was aware of this shortage. It is proved that the Inspection Committee had done the counting in his presence. Two members of this Committee namely P.WS Farooq Mahmood and P.W. 13 Safeer Ahmed have proved this fact. They have further proved that the members wanted to note down the shortage of the sheets in the ledger, but Parwaiz Fazal prevented them from doing so and asked them to leave the strong room, where the remaining stock was shifted from the Warehouse. (5)??????? 94 forged currency notes and 1,000 each and 595 forged notes also of Rs.1,000 each were recovered by F.IA. from the different placesduring the investigation." Before dealing with the respective contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, we deem it necessary to give a resume of the prosecution evidence. P.W.1 Dr. Amir Ahmed S.D.M. Karachi (South) who was a member of the raiding party, in his deposition has given the facts of prosecution case as are given in the F.I.R. The raiding party went to the Strong Room No.91 of the Corporation. It was found locked. The lock was opened by the Security staff. Ledgers and stock registers and contents of the strong room were checked. It was found that some of B.B.N. sheets were in the shape of complete ream, while others were loose. There was shortage which the witness recorded in the memo. According to the witness, the stock position was as follows: "(1)????? 2,066 reams of super size blank bank note sheets of the denomination of Rs.1,000 each ream contained 500 sheets. (2)??????? One ream of super size blank bank note sheets of Rs.1,000 denomination containing 495 sheets. (3)??????? 1,123 reams of standard size blank bank note sheets of 1,000 denomination each in shape of sealed packets each ream containing 500 sheets and (4)??????? one ream in broken form of standard size blank bank note sheets of 1,000 denomination containing 494 sheets were found." The stock was tallied with ledger and five sheets of super size B.B.N. sheets of thousand denomination and 506 sheets of standard size B.B.N. sheets of thousand denomination, were short. Some broken wrapper were found which were 251 in number. The sheets, registers, wrappers, and sub-register were seized under a memo prepared in presence of witness Mr. Naushad and Farooq Ahmad Bhatti and complainant Khaliquzzaman. After checking, the contents of Strong Room No.91, the raiding party proceeded to warehouse of Corporation. The security staff of Corporation had unlocked warehouse. There the raiding party found 2,852 reams of super size of B.B.N. sheets of 500 denomination in shape of sealed packets, each ream containing 500 sheets, 4 loose sheets of super size B.B.N. sheets of 500 denomination were also there without any packing. Besides above, 1,000 wrappers of reams of super size B.B.N. sheets of 500 denomination, in which discrepancies were discovered, 4 loose sheets of B.B.N. of 500 denomination, bank notes, ledgers of warehouse in original, delivery challans and cards were seized under a Mashirnama. In cross-examination, he deposed that he was not aware about the procedure and practice followed by the corporation staff in respect of maintenance of strong room and warehouse. He showed ignorance as to how the material was received and despatched .to strong room and warehouse. He stated that he did not know the names of the persons concerned and security staff, who had unlocked strong room and warehouse. He mentioned that he did not inquire, nor anybody informed him about the duties allocated to the various officers of the corporation. He mentioned that he did not prepare any raiding report. P.W. 2 Muhammad Akram Saeed on 16-5-1991 was A.C.M. (East), Karachi. On that date, he received a telephonic message from D.C. (East) to accompany F.I.R. party in connection with some raid. He stated that appellant Malik Sikandar was in custody of F.IA. at that time and he disclosed that some B.B. notes were in possession of some co-accused, and that some fake currency notes were also in their possession. He volunteered to point out the places where the sheets and notes were kept. Accordingly, appellant Sikandar led raiding party to the residence of appellant Malik Hayat, which was in P.IA. Colony, Karachi. It was Flat No.LH/3. Two witnesses were picked up from vicinity. Appellant Malik Hayat was present in said apartment, and he produced 94 fake currency notes of 1,000 denomination, which were seized and necessary Mashirnama was drawn in presence of Mushirs Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Afzal. The witness produced the seizure memo at Exh.16/1, which bears signatures of the Mashirs, Khaliquzzaman, and appellant Malik Hayat. In cross-examination, he deposed that he did not receive any direction in writing from Deputy Commissioner to assist F.IA. in conducting raid. He maintained that Malik Sikandar and Khaliquzzaman were talking to each other in his presence and hearing. He deposed that he did not sign currency notes, as it was not necessary and this was also for the reason that he had signed the seizure memo. He denied the suggestion that Muhammad Hayat was forcibly taken from his office at the Airport to his apartment. According to him, Muhammad Hayat had himself produced those currency notes before raiding party and he had brought them from another room. He mentioned that this statement, under section 161, Cr.P.C. was not recorded. P.W.3 Syed Najmul Hassan is Mashir of recovery of fake currency notes from a shop at the instance of Malik Sikandar. According to this witness, Malik Sikandar was in custody of F.IA., and voluntarily led the party to a shop which was found locked. Some files, three registers, one diary, one note book, currency notes, and other articles were recovered. The currency notes of Rs.1,000 were in sealed packets. All the packets and notes had the same serial number. Seizure memo was prepared. The witness by profession is a doctor. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he is a friend of Khaliquzzaman, Investigating Officer. He also denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of seizure and nor any article was seized in his presence. P.W.14 Muhammad Afzal was residing in an apartment bearing No.LV-1, P.IA. Colony, Karachi. On the relevant day, he and his colleague Muhammad Akram had returned from their office at about 4-45 P.M. and they found several persons in front of the house of Muhammad Hayat. According to him, Khaliquzzaman inquired from him and his said colleague as to whether they knew Malik Hayat. He told him that he was an employee of P.IA. When he and Akram entered the flat of Malik Hayat, they saw 94 currency notes of 1,000 denomination each were lying on a table. P.W.5 Farooq Bhatti was Manager of Account in the Corporation at the relevant time. He knew Fazal Parvaiz. Malik Sikandar and Nabi Sher. Parwaiz Fazal was Deputy Security Controller of P.S.P.C., while Sikandar Awan was Inspector in the Security Control Department. Nabi Sher according to this witness, was posted as an Inspector Incharge Warehouse. The witness? deposed that on 28-3-1991 the General Manager of P.S.P.C. had constituted a team of three persons, including himself, for 100% verification of the stock of 1000 and 500 denomination B.B.N. sheets, lying in warehouse of P.S.P.C. The witness specifically stated that warehouse was under control and dominion of Parvez Fazal and Nabi Sher. He mentioned that he did not know if any other person had control or dominion over this warehouse. According to him, physical checking was started on 2nd April, 1991 and was finished on 23-4-1991. He stated that, according to the ledger maintained in warehouse, there should have been 267 reams of super size blank bank note sheets of 1000 denomination and a 1,125 reams of standard blank notes sheets of 1000 denomination. He mentioned that there should have been 2,852 reams of B.B.N. sheets of 500 denomination and each ream should have contained 500 sheets of B.B.N. sheets. He deposed that team started 100% physical verification of the stock with the entries in ledger and found most of the wrappers torned. The team also found that out- of 2,067 super size reams five sheets of Rs.1,000 B.B.N. sheets were sfiort. Out of 1,125 sheets of super size506 sheets of 1,000 denomination were short. He deposed that, if currency notes in the missing sheets are printed, then the total face value thereof could be Rs.1,41,68,

000. He also deposed that, at the relevant time, appellant Nabi Sher was Incharge of Warehouse. The witness also deposed that 20 days later a F.IA. Team had come to Corporation and met General Manager. He and Col. Naushad were a ccompany said team, which consisted of Khaliquzzaman and other officers including a Magistrate. They were taken to a Strong Room No.

91. Lock of Strong Room was opened by personnel of Security Control. Thereafter, FIA team went to Warehouse, which was found locked. This lock was opened by Nabi Sher. B.B.N. sheets of Rs.500 denomination were verified and four sheets were found in excess. In cross? examination, he deposed that P.W. Wahid Beg was Deputy Security Controller/Deputy Security Controller Bank sheets at that time and appellant Parvez Fazal was Deputy Security Controller of OSP (Other SecurityProducts). He deposed that he is not aware about the procedure regarding transfer of papers and of B.B.N. sheets from S.P.L. to P.3.P.C. or about the despatch of the papers from warehouse to the Press. He stated that appellant Nabi Sher was Incharge of Warehouse and was responsible for maintaining record of warehouse. He also deposed that Nabi Sher was performing the duty of Assistant Inspector, Security at the time of inspection of warehouse. He stated that F.IA. had recorded the same shortage and excess, which earlier team had mentioned in the report Exh. 19/3. According to him, by virtue of letter at Exh.19/1, the Committee was not required to fix responsibility for shortage or excess on any individual or group. P.W.6 Qaisar Hussain was an Assistant Inspector, Security Control in the Security Control Department of P.S.P.C. He worked in R.C.P. Department up to the year 1991. He identified the signatures of acquitted accused Major Wilayat and Malik Jan Muhammad. P.W.7 Col. Naushad is full Colonel in Pakistan Army and at the relevant time he was on deputation in P.S.P.C. He was concerned with printing security documents including bank notes and Other Security Products (O.S.P.). He deposed that State Bank of Pakistan places indents for printing of currency and bank notes with P.S.P.C. of various denomination. He also deposed that, in January, 1991, when he took over as Security Controller, the Incharge of Warehouse was Nabi Sher, who was subordinate to Deputy Security Controller Parvez Fazal. There is a strong room in P.S.P.C. where printed currency notes are kept. P.W. Wahid Beg was Security Controller of Printing currency notes. He specifically mentioned that when he joined the P.S.P.C. he found that various officials were moving in various departments without any restriction, which was against the security rules. There were certain persons, who were not authorised to enter Security Department, but they were doing so against Rules. Malik Sikandar was Inspector Security Control, Parvez Fazal was Deputy Security Controller, and Nabi Sher was Incharge of Warehouse. Tariq Altaf was worker in Warehouse under Nabi Sher and was not entitled to visit sensitive departments without permission. Sahib Khan was also on the list of Security Department, but he was not working in the department at the time he (witness) took over as Security Controller. Acquitted accused Major Walayat Khan was on deputation with P.S.P.C. and was working as Deputy Security Controller. Acquitted accused Malik Jan Muhammad was an employee of SPL. Nabi Sher was Incharge of Warehouse and Parvez Fazal was Controller of paper stocks as well as Deputy Security Controller in respect of reams of bank notes sheets. He stated on 12-5-1991 F.IA. team visited P.S.P.C. Also, he deposed that B.B.N. sheets of Rs.1,000 denomination were checked by the team. He stated that B.B.N. sheets were checked by the team in presence of Parvez Fazal and as a result 506 sheets were found short and the shortage was detected by comparing the number of sheets available with the number of sheets recorded in ledger. In cross-examination, he deposed that Malik Sikandar Awan might have been suspended in January, 1991, when he (witness) had taken over the charge. According to him, for the first time he had seen Malik Sikandar Awan on 12-5-1991 in the office of the General Manager Mr. Cheema. He deposed that, an employee under suspension, is not entitled to enter sensitive parts of the department. He mentioned that the conditions in the corporation were uncontrollable and the employees were frequently moving unauthorisedly. He stated that after taking over charges and until 12th May, 1991, he did not see Malik Sikandar in the corporation. He admitted that in January, 1991, Malik Sikandar was transferred from Security to Transport Section. He deposed that packets received by P.S.P.C. are checked at the main gate by the staff of watch and ward, who make such entries in the register. He mentioned that F.IA. team had taken 2/3 hours to complete checking of Strong Room No.91 and they had taken another 3 hours for checking Warehouse. He deposed that Parvez, Farooq Bhatti, and Safeer were present during checking by F.IA. team. He also stated that he was not expert to tell about procedure, regarding despatch of security papers from warehouse to other departments of P.S.P.C. He was also not aware with the procedure, concerning how the security papers were kept in Warehouse. He mentioned that he did not remember how many days were taken by the committee of three officers in checking Warehouse and Strong Room. He added that, as Security Controller, he was responsible for general supervision, but so was not the case of Deputy Security Controller, who is directly concerned with the printing of papers. P.W.8 Gullan Khan is Mashir of breaking lock of the shop of Haji Yousuf. According to him, some files were recoverd from the cupboard. P.W.9 Mirza Abdul Wahid Beg is a very important witness of this case. His evidence was recorded on 18-6-1992 and 23-6-1992. Few months thereafter sulphuric acid was thrown upon him and he died an unnatural death. He served P.S.P.C. since 1955. In 1986, he was Deputy Security Controller in Bank Note Division. His duties commenced from the stage of printing of currency and bank notes. He stated that before 12-5-1991 Parvez Fazal was Incharge of Warehouse and Nabi Sher was Stock Assistant of Warehouse under Parvez Fazal. Malik Sikandar was Junior Assistant Inspector of Warehouse under Parvez Fazal from 1-6-1990 to 12-5-1991. Abovenamed Officers and workers were concerned with the Warehouse. He specifically mentioned that Parvez Fazal was responsible for receiving, safe custody, and counting of bank sheets. He deposed that it was the duty of Parvez Fazal tb keep account, of the waste sheets and of their destruction. Deposing about the duty of Nabi Sher, the witness stated that as a Stock Assistant, it was duty of Nabi Sher to maintain stock level, safe custody of B.B.N. sheets, maintenance of accounts of receipts and issue of B.B.N. sheets. He also stated that duty of Malik Sikandar was the same as that of Nabi Sher and he was also responsible to prepare monthly statements. He further stated that it was also the duty of Malik Sikandar to maintain security of warehouse and to check entry in warehouse of unauthorized persons. About Tariq Altaf, the witness stated that he was a loader in warehouse, and his duty was to open crates of B.B.N. sheets and stock them. The witness also stated that Sahib Khan was sheet counter outside warehouse and was not entitled to enter Warehouse, but he used to enter there. He was posted in the Packing Department. The witness specifically stated that Nabi Sher and Sikandar Awan used to receive the consignments after checking them with the incoming pass and challans of SPL. According to the witness, Walayat Khan was the Security Controller of SPI, while Malik Jan Muhammad was the Security Officer there during the period from 1--1990 to 12-5-1990. He stated that on 13-6-1991 the F.IA. Team visited P.S.P.C. and certain documents were seized under a Mashirnama. In cross, he deposed that as the Deputy Security Controller his, duty was of a supervisory nature. He mentioned that record of shortage and excess is maintained by the Receiving Department. He stated that keys of all the Strong Rooms are kept by Incharge of the department concerned. According to him, if any theft or pilferage, is discovered in the B.BN. sheets, after the same were received and kept in Strong Room concerned, then the Incharge of Store Room is responsible for it. If the theft occurs after the sheets are handed over for printing to the Printing Department, then the Manager of Printing Department is responsible for the same. Replying to a question the witness stated that, at the time of incident the correct designation of Malik Sikandar Awan was Junior Assistant Inspector Security and not Junior Inspector. He deposed that since no question was put to him by F.IA. regarding the duties of Malik Sikandar, therefore, he had not stated before them that Malik Sikandar was responsible for maintaining stock level, safe custody of B.B.N. sheets, maintaining records of receipts and issue of B.B.N. sheets for preparing monthly statements. The witness admitted that there were 7/8 loaders including Tariq Altai in warehouse. He showed his ignorance as to who used to work for Nabi Sher, when he proceeded on leave. He denied a suggestion that he was let off by F.IA. after he promised to give evidence in favour of the prosecution. He admitted that Sahib Khan and Malik Sikandar are brothers inter se. P.W.10 Khalid Pervez Cheema, at the relevant time, was Junior Assistant Security Inspector. He was declared hostile. According to prosecution, Tariq Altaf had told him that Fazal, Sikandar Awan, and others had removed B.B.N. sheets. He denied that Tariq Altaf ever told him as above. He also denied the suggestion of learned State counsel that Tariq Altaf had complained him that his (Tariq Altaf) share of Rs.2 lacs was not paid to him. P.W.11 Tariq Yousuf on 3-6-1991 was S.I., F.I.A. Crime Branch, Peshawar. Alongwith Mr. Fazle Bahadur, he had gone to Sabqadar. He deposed that the house of Hidayatullah who lived in Atkay was searched with the assistance of local police and at that time Hidayatullah was present. According to him, some positive and negative films of Iranian currency, used P.IA. tickets of Islamabad-Karachi, and other articles were secured. He stated that Hidayatullah was arrested and was interrogated by Mr. Fazle Bahadur on 4-6-1991 and thereafter he volunteered to point out the place from where Rota machine was recovered. Three pieces of papers with water mark and portrait of Quaid-e-Azam were also recovered These articles were found in the house, which was pointed out by Hidayatullah. He stated that machine recovered at the instance of Hidayatullah is used for counterfeiting currency notes. On 8-6-1991, he again accompanied Fazle Bahadur to Art Centre, Peshawar, where they were led by Arif Hussain, who was already in custody of police. At his pointation, a camera was recovered which was used for preparing negative film. He deposed that as per customs of tribal area, the residents of the locality do not come forward to become witness of recovery of incriminating articles: In cross-examination, he deposed that he had no experience of printing press. He stated that the house from where Rota machine was recovered was not inhabited. In reply to another question, he stated that he did not know from where Arif Hussain was arrested. P.W.12 Khalid Khan was Naib-Tehsildar, Mohmand Agency. On 4-6-1991, he was directed by Political Agent to assist the investigating team, which had arrived from Peshawar. He led the team to the office of the Political Agent in Gola Nali. The team consisted of Fazle Bahadur, Afzal Ali Shah, Noor Ali and others. One accused was already in custody of the team. The machine was recovered. Three pieces of papers were found in the machine. According to him, recovery was affected at the instance of Hidayatullah. He denied defence suggestion that investigating team had purchased said printing machine from somebody of said locality. P.W.13 Safeer Ahmed Khan deposed that on 28-3-1991 the then General Manager of P.S.P.C. had formed a committee of three members to undertake 100% verification of the stock of 1,000 and 500 notes of B.B.N. sheets, lying in the Warehouse of P.S.P.C. He was a member of that Committee. According to him, Parvez Fazal was Deputy Security Controller of P.S.P.C. and he was Incharge of Warehouse. About verification of the stock, he deposed that 511 sheets of B.B.N. of 1,000 denomination were found short. Of them, 506 were of standard size and 5 were of super, size. He mentioned that Nabi Sher was Stock Assistant at the relevant time. According to him, both Parvez Fazal and Nabi Sher were present in warehouse at the time of stock verification. The witness also deposed that after counting the team was asked by Parvez Fazal to leave warehouse without making any entry or observation in the ledger. In cross-examination, he deposed that there were 4/5 departments under Parvez Fazal and they were warehouse, packing, stamps and letters, press and litho. There was separate Incharge for each of said department, and Parvez Fazal was over all Incharge of all the above departments. He stated that, in the report Exh.19/3, it was not mentioned that Nabi Sher was present at the time of verification. He showed his ignorance if Qadir Bux, Qutbuddin and Khalid Khan also worked in the above Warehouse as Security Inspectors. He further stated that he could not identify the signatures in the relevant column of ledger (entries Exhs.28/1 and 28/2 in the ledger Article "E"). In reply to another question, he deposed that his statement was recorded by F.I.A. after 2/4 days of the raid. P.W.14 Rab Nawaz in 1985 he was appointed as Junior Clerk in P.S.P.C. In 1988, he was promoted as Junior Security Inspector, Security Control. On 16-10-1991, he resigned from above post and joined Sindh Police.? According to him, in May, 1991 Tariq Altaf asked him to help him. He further stated that Tariq Altaf disclosed him that B.B.N. sheets of 1,000 and 500 denomination were removed from warehouse with the assistance of Fazal, Nabi Sher and Sikandar Awan. He further told him that one Yousuf Afridi, resident of Dara Adam Khail, had contacted Sikandar Awan and Malik Farooq and had a deal for the purchase of the stolen sheets. He also informed that an amount of Rs.20,00,000 which was his share was not paid to him by Sikandar Awan and Malik Farooq. According to the witness, he told him (Tariq Altaf) that he could not help him and he committed a mistake by disclosing him above facts. In cross-examination, he admitted that Mr. Irfanullah Marwat got him appointed as A.S.I. in Police and he was arrested in Veena Hayat case. He denied a defence suggestion that he was accused in the case of car and motor?cycle lifting. He deposed that he did not say before F.IA. that Tariq Altaf had requested him to approach Mr. Irfanullah Marwat. According to him, he had brought all the facts to the notice of Parvez Fazal, who warned him to keep quiet. P.W.15 Muhammad Shaft was Security Inspector in S.P.L.'since 1969. He deposed that bank notes papers are supplied to P.S.P.C. and so also blank security papers on receiving requisition from P.S.P.C. According to him, Nabi Sher was one of the Incharges of Warehouse to whom delivery of the consignment was made. He also deposed that during his period since 1985 3/4 times even loose sheets of bank notes were supplied by S.P.L. to P.S.P.C. He maintained that he had himself supplied loose sheets under written orders. In cross-examination, he deposed that in normal course sheets are never supplied in-loose form. P.W.16 Wali Muhammad was posted at S.P.L. in 1991 as Security Inspector. According to him, he used to supply the papers according to the demand of P.S.P.C. P.W.17 Qurban Ali Shaikh Checker deposed that since 1975 he was serving in P.S.P.C. and he used to receive security papers from S.P.L. His duty was to check the papers and to keep them in storeroom. In the year 1991, all blank notes sheets were stored in the Strong Room after proper checking. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination, he denied that Nabi Sher, Sikandar Awan used to move without authority in P.S.P.C. in sensitive departments. He also denied the suggestion that Fazal used to allow abovenamed persons to keep the security blank sheets in strong room without prior entries in the relevant register. P.W.18 Muhammad Hussain, Group Inspector P.S.P.C. stated that sheets were received in the forms of ream and his duty was to stock the bundles in Warehouse without counting. He deposed that he did not count the bundles while keeping them in' Warehouse. He was also declared hostile. P.W.19 Ahmad Rashid was Deputy Assistant Incharge of Packing Department in P.S.P.C. On 13-6-1991, P.W. Mirza Abdul Wahid Beg in his presence had produced two files before Khaliquzzaman, Investigating Officer. P.W.20 Waqar Ahmed, Junior Assistant Security Inspector deposed that during the period commencing from 1-6-1990 to 14-12-1990 Parvez Fazal was the Deputy Security Controller of Warehouse of P.S.P.C. and Nabr Sher was Stock Assistant. According to him, his duty was to receive the requisitions and to despatch reams of the sheets to the department concerned after making necessary entries in he stock register. After seeing the entries Nos.ll and 13 in Fxh.28/2 in the stock register (Article "E") he stated that "last but one column of the entry bears his signature and that of Nabi S her". He also deposed that Nabi Sher had asked him to sign the entries saying that he was the concerned clerk. He also deposed that all the entries were signed by Nabi Sher in the capacity of Stock Assistant. P.W.21 Khawaja Sahib Ahmad, who was Manager, Machine, SPL, deposed that S.P.L. is controlled by the 'Federal Government and it manufactures B.B.N. sheets and various security papers. According to him, the speciality of B.B.N. sheets is the water mark, portrait of Quaid-e-Azam, and security thread. Paper used for printing currency notes is of invisible fibre and fluorescent. P.W.22 Somat Gul Constable F.IA. Peshawar is a Mashir of recovery of certain documents including pass book etc. The recovery was affected by Fazle Bahadur Inspector. P.W.23 Javed Siddiqui, Manager, U.B.L. Khyber Bazar Branch, Peshawar, deposed that acquitted accused Muhammad Azam had current account bearing No.1403 in said branch. Inspector F.IA. had seized certain documents after producing an order of High Court, permitting such seizure. He mentioned that TT for Rs.l lac was received by his branch from United Bank Limited, Khardar Branch, Karachi. He mentioned that the name of remitter is not mentioned in said TT. P.W.24 Azmatullah deposed that in May, 1991, he had gone to Mohmand Agency to purchase a pistol. According to him, he had seen one man in Bad-e-Zai printing currency notes of Rs.1,000 denomination by printing machine. On his inquiry, said man told that he had obtained contract from the Government to print the currency notes. He said that said man was Hidayatullah. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was a driver of Fazle Bahadur. Giving another reply, he maintained that due to fear he did not tell any one that he had seen Hidayatullah printing currency notes. P.W.25 Fazle Bahadur is one of the investigating officer of this case. In cross-examination, he deposed that memo of arrest is not prepared and the arrest is only shown in the case diary. He mentioned that the house from where machinery was recovered belonged to Badi Khan. According to him, Arif was arrested on 7-6-1991 by Mr. Pir Asghar Ali Shah, D.S.P. F.IA. He mentioned that he did not get the camera examined by any expert. P.W.26 Syed Hussain Asghar, Inspector, Central Excise deposed that security papers were despatched from S.P.L. in forms of packed reams and stray sheets of papers were never despatched from S.P.L. P.W.27 Dr. Musthaq Ahmad Chief Chemist P.S.P.C. deposed that he was serving against above post since September, 1973. He is Ph.D. in Chemistry from Scotland. On 11-6-1991, he had received a letter from F.IA. for examining the lots of currency notes of thousand denomination, which were maked as "A" and "B". According to him, he was required to give his opinion about the following four points:-- (1) Whether the questioned currency notes are genuine or counterfeit. (2) Whether the paper used for printing of questioned notes is genuine as manufactured by S.P.L. for P.S.P.C. for printing of currency notes of Rs.1,000 denomination. (3)??????? Whether the printing of these notes is the same as carried out on the printing machine of P.S.P.C. or these have been printed on some other machines. (4)??????? Whether the currency notes as contents of envelope "A" are identical in all respects to the currency notes as per contents of envelope "B". He has given his opinion in his report, which has come on record. He mentioned that 94 currency notes of 1,00(I-denomination sealed in envelopes "A" and 595 currency notes of 1,000 denomination sealed in envelope "B" were forged. According to him, the currency notes in envelop "A" -and "B" were similar in all respects i.e. paper ink, colour, quality reproduction of designs, printings quality and number digit fascimile. About his opinion on the films sent to him through a letter dated 29-6-1991, he deposed that these are films positive of 2,000 Ryals notes of Islamic Republic of Iran and could be used for printing forged bank notes of Iran. He had also received a letter dated 3-7-1991 requesting him to examine three pieces of papers and to opine as to whether these pieces were part of papers produced by S.P.L. He opined that these pieces are part of a genuine Pakistani blank bank note sheets used for printing Rs.1,000 currency notes. He was not cross-examined by any of the defence counsel. P.W.28 Muhammad Yousuf Manager, U.B.L., Zain Arcade Line Area, Karachi, deposed that Messrs Naushera Goods, Forwarding Agency are account-holders in said Branch. The account was operated by proprietor Javed? Akhtar. On 2-4-1989, Accountant Abdul Qadir of said Agency had come to the branch to give TT of Rs.1 lacs for Peshawar. The witness has produced the application form at Exh.48/1. P.W.29 Niaz Hassan Shah, on 16-6-1991, was A.C.M. (East), Karachi and he recorded confessions of Fida Muhammad and Arif Humain. Both the confessions have come on record. P.W.30 Abdul Qadir deposed that he was Munshi in Naushera Goods Transport Co. at Karachi on 2-4-1989. The proprietor of said company had asked him to accompany Yousuf Afridi for getting a TT from bank prepared for the amount of rupees one lac. He mentioned that said TT was on record at Exh.48/1. P.W31 Manzoor, who is an employee of U.B.L. deposed that on 3-6-1990 one Haji Muhammad Yousuf Afridi had opened account in Shireen Jinnah Colony Branch of the bank in the name of Wanhar Goods Transport, which was Current Account No.2273. Haji Muhammad Yousuf Afridi on 21-1-1991 had opened another account, which was in his personal name. P.W.32 Nazar Gul deposed that he was residing at Shireen Jinnah Colony for the last 17 years. He has three shops in said colony on Plot No.L-500. One of these shops was rented out to Haji Yousuf on a monthly rent of Rs.700. P.W33 Aqeel Ahmed Qureshi, and P.W.34, Khaliquzzaman are the Investigating Officers. Above in short, is the evidence of the prosecution. Since the property was under the control of appellants Parvez Fazal and Nabi Sher, therefore, it would be proper to discuss their case first. It is contended on behalf of appellant Parvez Fazal that appellant was neither in exclusive possession or control of B.B.N. sheets, nor he had dominion over said property. Further, it has been argued that evidence on record clearly shows that there were several persons who were dealing with B.B.N. sheets in the normal course of business, therefore, it cannot be said that appellant was the only person having possession or control over the misappropriated property. Learned counsel also contended that it was simply a case of shortage occurred during the normal course of business and for that reason the committee constituted for 100% verification of the stock did not fix up any responsibility upon any of the persons of the corporation. He also submitted that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence, particularly of those witnesses who have made certain allegations against the appellant. Plea has also been taken that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that no recovery was affected from appellant as such, the question of violation of the provisions of sections 489-A, 489-B and 489-C simply does not arise. On behalf of appellant Nabi Sher, it is argued that there is no documentary evidence on record to show that property is question was ever entrusted to him. It is also contended that learned trial Judge has only taken into consideration the examination-in?chief of the witnesses, and totally ignored the evidence, which has come on record in cross-examination. Learned counsel also argued that no case, under any of the sections, was made out against appellant. In support of above contentions, learned counsel cited (1) Shakir Hussain v. The State P L D 1956 SC 417, (2) Mir Muhammad v. The State P L D 1962 SC 489, (3) Syed Muhammad Rizvi v. The State 1973 P Cr. L J 1015, (4) Syed Noor-ul-Hassan v. The State P L D 1984 Pesh. 273, (5) Nazar Abbas v. The State 1989 P Cr. L J 967, (6) Abdul Rahman v. The State 1991 S C M R 244, (7) Muhammad Razzaq v. The State 1992 P Cr. L J 342, (8) Muhammad Luqman v. The State PLD1970SC

10. In Shakir Hussain's case it was held by Supreme Court that to establish a charge of criminal breach of trust, the prosecution must prove not only entrustment of, or dominion over property, but also that the accused either dishonestly misappropriated, converted, used or disposed of that property himself or that he wilfully suffered some other person to do so. In Mir Muhammad's case it was held that mere absence of money in all cases is not sufficient to establish charge of misappropriation. In Syed Muhammad Rizvi's case a learned Single Judge of Sindh High Court held that mere shortage of cash without proving amount of money misappropriated was not sufficient to establish charge under section 409, P.P.C. In Syed Noorul Hassan's case the' view taken in the above-quoted cases was followed and it was held that mere proof of disappearance of money without proof of actual entrustment of money to accused cannot bring home to accused offence of misappropriation. In Nazar Abbas's case it was observed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court that since no recovery was affected at the instance of accused and that there was no evidence to the effect that the accused was ever in exclusive possession of property, as such, in absence of any direct evidence the accused cannot be convicted. In Abid Rahman's case the Supreme Court held that unless entrustment is proved, the question of misappropriation does not arise. In Muhammad Razzak's case a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court observed that main ingredient in proving the offence under section 409, P.P.C. is entrustment of property to the accused. In Muhammad Luqman's case the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that finding should rest truly and firmly on the evidence produced in the case and the clear inference be drawn therefrom. Guilt cannot be based merely on high probabilities. Each case has its own peculiar circumstances, and a dictum of law is laid down keeping in view its salient features. Therefore, the law enunciated, distinctly dealing with certain facts, may apply to that particular case only. Close scrutiny of the facts reveals that there is irrefutable evidence on record to show that appellants Parvez Fazal and Nabi Sher were entrusted with, the property and had complete control over it. This is evident from the testimony of P.Ws. Farooq Bhatti Col. Naushad, Mirza Abdul Wahid Beg and Safeer Ahmed. Of them, Farooq Bhatti and Safeer Ahmed were the members of the Committee which was constituted for 100% verification of the stock. There is consistency in their evidence and it is in line with the report submitted by the Committee. They are the employees of P.S.P.C. and as such must have definitely known as who were the Incharge of Warehouse, and Strong Room. There is conclusive evidence on record to show that Parvez Fazal and Nabi Sher had the keys of Strong Room and Warehouse and they had opened them. If they had no concern with the Strong Room and Warehouse then there was no occasion for them to have those keys. The evidence also shows that counting was done in their presence. This is again very strong point of evidence against their. If they had no concern with the B.B.N. sheets then neither the Committee would have verified the stock in presence of unconcerned persons and nor they (Parvez and Nabi Sher) would have stayed there. P.W. Mirza Abdul Wahid Beg, who paid the penalty of his life probably for having deposed against the culprits of this case, in his deposition stated that appellant Parvez Fazal was responsible for receiving, safe custody, and counting of Bank sheets. About Nabi Sher he stated that he was responsible to maintain stock level, safe custody of B.B.N. sheets, maintenance of accounts of receipts and issue of B.B.N. sheets. The evidence of P.W. Col. Naushad reveals that there was complete disorder in P.S.P.C. when he assumed his duties there. It appears form his testimony that virtually the administration had collapsed and the officials were openly violating the Security Rules. Corroboration of above circumstances is found in the testimony of P.W. Safeer Ahmed when he deposed that after the counting the members of the Committee were asked by Parvez Fazal to leave the Warehouse without making any entry or observation in the ledger. This was of force of the mischievous person in the Corporation. Besides, appellant Parvez Fazal in his statement, recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., has clearly admitted that he was Incharge of Warehouse in supervisory capacity. There is, however, overwhelming evidence on record to show that he and Nabi Sher had complete control over the property and were dealing as, such. The evidence of P.Ws: Farooq Bhatti, Col. Naushad, Mirza Abdul Wahid Beg and Safeer Ahmed is reliable, straightforward and impeccable. We believe them. Mr. I. A. Hashmi learned counsel for appellant Parvez Fazal strangeously argued that the Committee which had done the job of 100% verification, did not fix up responsibility of anybody, as such, it shall be presumed that shortage, if any, was in the normal course of business and there was no misappropriation. The contention has no force. The Committee was never entrusted the job to fix up the responsibility. Mr. Hashmi also contented that Col. Naushad being Security Controller should also have been joined as accused of this case. Neither the investigating agency found any evidence against him, nor the management of P.S.P.C. at any stage attributed any overt act to him and nor the accused persons of this case implicated him in the commission of this crime. It being so, there was no question of joining him as accused of this case. ??????????? The duties of the employees of P.S.P.C., like many other Government functionaries, are of a highly confidential character, having great powers of control over the property entrusted to them, and a breach in such duty on the one hand causes inconvenience to P.S.P.C., and on the other the Government property is misappropriated. As mentioned in the aforesaid cases, one of the essentials of the offence under section 409, P.P.C. is the dishonest intention and this can be established by an overt act. It is settled law that for the applicability of aforesaid section it is absolutely necessary to show that entrustment of property was done within the meaning of said section. No specific mode is prescribed for creating a trust under this section. Therefore, the trust can be by a spec order, and also by reason of duties assigned to a public functionary. In the instant case, both Parvez Fazal and Nabi Sher, by reason of their duties, were dealing with the property. Therefore, they were fully responsible to account for it. Once the misappropriation is proved alongwith the fact of entrustment of dominion over the property of the case, the fact that the misappropriated property was not recovered would not by itself be enough to establish the innocence of the accused, and the accused would be liable for breach of trust irrespective of the value of the misappropriated property. ??????????? Charge of misappropriation against them stands proved without any shadow of doubt. ??????????? The appellants are guilty of abetment under section 109, P.P.C. and also for the offences punishable under section 489-A, C&D., P.P.C. Abetment can be committed by instigation or conspiracy or intentional aid. Instigation shows some sort of advice for the commission of .an act, which if done, would be an offence. For abetment by conspiracy, it is necessary to show that an illegal omission was done for the thing conspired for. In order to prove abetment by intentional aid, it must be shown that the commission of crime was facilitated by either an act on the part of abettor or by his illegal omission. ??????????? Under section 489-A, P.P.C. whoever counterfeits or knowingly performs any part with the process of counterfeiting, is liable for punishment under this section. By misappropriating the B.B.N. sheets the appellants knowingly performed a part in the process of counterfeiting,' as they knew it very well that on these sheets counterfeit currency notes would be printed. The evidence on record has conclusively established that the notes were printed on the misappropriated B.B.N. sheets. These forged notes were used as genuine, therefore, the offence under section 489-C is also established. Likewise, they are also guilty under section 489-D for having supplied B.B.N. sheets for the purpose of counterfeiting currency notes. Without their assistance, the fake currency notes would never have been printed. ??????????? It is contended on behalf of appellant Malik Sikandar Awan that there is no evidence on record to attract that provisions of section 109, P.P.C. for constructive liability, as such, the conviction under this section and other sections is illegal. Further, it has been argued that there is no documentary evidence to show that appellant was posted in Warehouse from 1-6-1990 to 12-5-1991. According to learned counsel, oral evidence is not reliable, and learned trial Court has erred in accepting such evidence. A plea has also been taken that evidence of P.W. Aqeel Qureshi should have been rejected out-rightly, as it, was hit by Articles 38, 39 and 40 of the Qanune-Shahadat, 1984. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the case The State v. Jamil lqbal reported in P. L D 1974 Quetta 28, wherein it was held that "not every statement to police but only such portion of it as relates distinctly to the facts discovered by police is admissible. In this case, the sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act, corresponding to Articles 38, 39 and 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat were considered. There is no force in above contentions. ??????????? P.W. Mirza Abdul Wahid Beg, on oath, stated that Malik Sikandar was Junior Assistant Inspector of Warehouse under Parvez Fazal. He also deposed that duty of Malik Sikandar was the same a~ that of Nabi Sher and he was also responsible to prepare monthly statements. He also deposed that Nabi Sher and Malik Sikandar Awan used to receive consignments after checking them with the incoming pass and the challans supplied by the S.P.L. P.W. Muhammad Saeed Akram, who at the relevant time was A.C.M. (East) Karachi, deposed that Malik Sikandar was in custody of F.IA., and he disclosed that some blank sheets of currency notes were in possession of some co-accused and so also some fake currency notes. He volunteered to point out the places where the notes were kept. According to the witness, Malik Sikandar led F.IA. team to the residence of appellant Malik Hayat from where 94 fake currency notes were recovered. Evidence of Syed Najmul Hassan and Muhammad Afzal is also on the same line. ??????????? Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh learned counsel argued that recoveries at the instance of appellant Malik Sikandar are full of contradictions and doubts and are not proved according to law. He argued that, in fact, said currency notes were foisted upon appellant. We do not find any reason for disbelieve the witnesses of recovery. We also hold that without pointation of appellant those recoveries would never have been affected. Presence of appellant at the time of recoveries is established without any shadow of doubt. It was in his knowledge that fake currency notes were at the place from where they were seized. Constructive liability of appellant is established and section 109, P.P.C., under the circumstances, is fully attracted. The plea that, at the most, it could be inferred from said two recoveries that appellant Sikandar Awan had knowledge about those fake notes and knowledge by itself was no offence, is devoid of any force. He had knowledge as well as played a pivotal role in the commission of this crime. We also do not find any force in the submission that, Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, is not applicable. When a statement irrespective of the fact that it is confession or not made by, an accused in police custody is confirmed by the discovery of some material facts perceivable by the senses, such statement is admissible and can be proved under Article

40. The idea behind this Article is that if a fact is found due to information given, then some guarantee is provided thereby that the information was true, as such, it can be safely permitted to be taken in evidence. The gist of Article 40 is that, besides it being a proviso to Article 39, it also cuts down the operation of Articles 37 and

38. The condition precedent for applicability of Article 40 is that there must be discovery of fact, in consequence of some information received from accused, and at that time the accused be in custody of a police officer. In this case, the appellant was in custody and at his instance the recoveries were affected. Therefore, Article 40 is attracted and said recoveries were according to law. The case cited by learned counsel is distinguishable and is not attracted to this case. The case against appellant under sections 409, 489-A and 489-D read with section 109, P.P.C. stands proved. On behalf of appellant Malik Hayat, it is contended that no recovery was affected from his house and 594 forged currency notes were foisted upon him. Also, it has been argued that alleged recovery, in view of Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat was contrary to law, as such, it could not be made basis for his conviction. Elaborating it, learned counsel submitted that Investigating Officer himself claimed to have known the place at which and the person with whom the alleged forged currency notes were to be found, as such, it was neither necessary to make recovery in presence of appellant Malik Sikandar, nor could said recovery be considered as a discovery at the pointation of said appellant. In this connection, he pointed out the Mashirnama of recovery Exh.16/1 which, inter alia, mentioned:-- "In connection with the investigation of above case F.I.R. the accused Malik Sikandar Awan under custody disclosed that against the misappropriated blank bank note sheets of Pakistan Security Printing Corporation he has also got printed fake notes of Rs.1,000 denomination and sold them in market. He further disclosed that some of the remaining stocks is still available with his friend Malik Muhammad Hayat son of Surkhuru Khan who works in P.IA. Transport Department and lives at P.IA. Colony, Airport, Karachi. The accused further disclosed that he can lead the F.IA. party to the recovery of these fake currency notes." In support of above contention learned counsel cited Muhammad Afzal v. The State 1983 S C M R 1, wherein it was held that "recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act is admissible only to the extent that when the accused leads to recovery of incriminating articles and his words or action leading to the discovery are contemporaneous with the recovery as forming part of the res gestae". We do not find any illegality on the point of recovery. The factum of recovery is conclusively proved by the testimony of Muhammad Akram Saeed, the then A.C.M. (East) Karachi, and that of Mashir Muhammad Afzal. There was no reason for the Magistrate and Mashirs to falsely implicate him, and no valid ground has been shown which could falsify their version. The evidence on record shows that first recovery was affected, and thereafter Mashirnama was drawn. The mistake, if any, was in drafting the Mashirnama and not in the procedure adopted for recovery. Mr. A.H. Lakho learned counsel for appellant criticised the factum of recovery on the plea that signatures of appellant were obtained on Mashirnama, which is contrary to law. Mr. Kazi Ashraf learned State counsel explaine4 that singatures were obtained not for the purpose of testifying the contents of Mashirnama, but as a token of receipt of it. The explanation appears to be satisfactory. Even otherwise. No prejudice was caused to appellant by his signature over Mashirnama, as for the purpose of proving contents of Mashirnama we have believed the statements of witnesses and not the signatures of appellant. The case cited by learned counsel for appellant is distinguishable. Evidence of D.Ws. Azmatullah and Ghulam Mohiuddin on the point that at the relevant time the appellant could not be available at his house does not inspire confidence. Muhammad Akram Saeed A.C.M. clearly stated that he was present in his apartment at that time. Mr. Gut Zaman Khan learned counsel for appellant Hidayatullah contended that testimony of P.Ws. Tariq Yousuf, Khalid Khan, Azmatullah, Fazle Bahadur, Mushtaq Ahmed, Chief Chemist, Niaz Hussain Shah, Aqeel Ahmed Qureshi and Khalilql?zaman could not be relied upon, as the evidence of these witnesses was not believed in respect of acquitted accused namely, Arif Hussain, Fida Muhammad, Muhammad Azam, and Ikramuddin. Further, it has been argued that serious prejudice was caused to appellant as his application moved under section 540, Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W. Mushtaq Ahmed was rejected without any justification. It is also urged that 161, CI.P.C. statements recorded on 3-6-1991 were not supplied to appellant and this made difficult for him to present his case before learned trial Court. He also argued that recoveries were in violation of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat. In support of above contentions, learned counsel cited (1) Emperor v. Boota Singh A I R 1917 Lah. 48, (2) Sohan Singh v. Emperor A I R 1930 Lah. 91, (3) Hata v. Emperor A I R (30) 1943 Lah. 4, (4) Pehlwan and 3 others v. The State 1975 P Cr. L J 1096, (5) Mujahid Hussain v. The State 1985 S C M R 1573 and (6) Amir Ali v. The State 1993 P Cr. L J

457. In the case of Boota Singh, it was held that mere knowledge of the place of concealment does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the person having such knowledge accually received the stolen articles or participated in the act of concealment. In the case of Sohan Singh the only evidence on which the conviction was based was that he pointed out three places from which portions of the stolen property were recovered. The convict's father and brother were also suspected and eventually discharged. It was held that such evidence was not sufficient to justify the conviction. In Hata's case it was held that voluntary production of stolen property by person before police from his house on that basis no presumption could be drawn that he was a receiver of the stolen property. In Pehlwan's case recovery was not believed, as it was not affected in presence of disinterested witnesses. In Mujahid Hussain's case the recovery was not believed, as accused was not shown to have absconded away and had an opportunity to get rid of the incriminating articles. It was held that under the circumstances the accused would not keep articles in his house for four days till he was arrested. In Amir Ali's case both the recovery witnesses were police officials and in view of the circumstances of the case, they were not believed. Above contentions are devoid of any force. By general sweeping remarks the credibility of a witness cannot be doubted. Mere fact that a witness is not believed on one point does not, ipso facto, render his evidence on other point invalid. The evidence of a witness on each independent point is to be J sifted on its own intrinsic value. Recovery of articles from the appellant, mentioned earlier, stands proved without any shadow of doubt. On the point of recovery even the evidence of Investigating Officer, if it inspires confidence, is l h enough. Recovery of articles in question stands proved from testimony o `f P.Ws. Tariq Yousuf, Khalid Khan and Fazle Bahadur Evidence of D.W. Ali Muhammad and Kamaluddin is not of the quality as to falsify the version of P.Ws. It cannot be relied upon. As regards submission regarding application under section 540, Cr.P.C. it is noted that when statement of P.W. Mushtaq Ahmed was recorded none of the counsel appearing for the respective parties cross-examined him, His testimony is purely of a technical nature and no valid ground was shown for recalling him particularly when the opportunity was given to the appellant to cross-examine him. So far the plea of not supplying the 161, CI.P.C: statement is concerned, it is noted that Mr. Gulzaman Khan learned counsel for appellant, at length cross-examined Khaliquzzaman Investigating Officer, and while doing so the statements of other witnesses, including Tariq Yousuf, were referred. Cross-examination clearly shows that he was fully prepared with the case. Besides, learned counsel has not pinpointed the date on which the demand for the statements was made and when the Investigating Officer declined to supply the same. The authorities cited by learned counsel are not attracted to this case. The case against appellant under sections 409, 489-A, 489-C, 489-D read with section 109, P.P.C. stands proved. It is urged on behalf of Tariq Altaf and Sahib Khan that, in spite of the fact that there was no evidence worthmentioning connecting them with this crime, yet, learned trial Court convicted them. Appellant Tariq Altaf and Sahib Khan were workers in Warehouse. Sahib khan is a brother of Malik Sikandar Awan. It is alleged that appellant Tariq Altaf had confessed his guilt before' P.W. Rab Nawaz. The mere fact that, at the relevant time Tariq Altaf was working as loader in Warehouse was not by itself sufficient for conviction. Admittedly, many other persons were working there at that time. As regards his alleged extra-judicial confession before P.W. Rab Nawaz, we have in details examined the evidence of said witness and are of the view that it would not be justified to convict him on his testimony, which, on material facts, remained uncorroborated. So far Sahib Khan is concerned, no incriminating evidence has been brought against him. Simply because he is brother of Malik Sikandar Awan was not enough to convict him. Learned trial Judge, while dealing with the case of these two appellants observed that "Tariq Altaf and Malik Sahib Khan were also working in the warehouse. Without their instrumentality, the officers viz. Parvez Fazal and Nabi Sher would not have been able to cause disappearance of the valuable sheets". With due respect, we hold that the above finding is primarily based on presumption, and there is no material evidence to substantiate above finding. We hold that both of them are entitled to acquittal. The conclusion, therefore, would be that appellants Malik Sikandar Awan, Major Parvez Fazal, Nabi Sher, and Hidayatullah have rightly been convicted under sections 409, 489-A, 409-C/489-C and 489-D read with section 109, P.P.C. The conviction of appellant Malik Hayat under section 489-C, P.P.C. is also correct and according to law. Mr. Kazi Ashraf learned counsel for the State argued that learned trial Court has instead of awarding life imprisonment, only sentenced the appellants for seven years, which is inadequate. He submitted that the sentence of appellants be enhanced from seven years to life imprisonment. We have examined this contention, and are of the view that further enhancement of sentence is not justified. It is settled proposition of law that power of enhance is to be sparingly exercised. In the case Uttam Singh v. Emperor reported in A I R 1938 Lah. 260 relevant page 262 which was under section IN 302, P.P.C. on the point of sentence the following was observed:-- "We are of the opinion that the power to enhance sentences should be sparingly exercised by this Court and sentences should be enhanced only in cases where the failure to enhance the sentence would lead to a serious miscarriage of justice. The mere fact that this Court had it been trying the case, might have imposed the capital sentence, is not a sufficient reason for enhancement. We, therefore, dismisss the petition for enhancement of sentence awarded to Ghanya Lal and Mulkh Raj.? In the case of Ameer Umar v. The State reported in 1976 S C M R 338 on the point of quantum of sentence the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as follows:-- "As regards the sentence, it is not the normal practice or province of this Court to interfere with a legal sentence. It is primarily for the trial Court or the appellate and the revisional Court to assess the appropriate quantum of sentence which would meet the ends of justice. As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed." The point of quantum of sentence also came under discussion before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Bonifacio A. Burayag v. The State reported in P L D 1991 SC

988. In this case the trial Court, instead of life imprisonment, had awarded seven years' R.I. and the Supreme Court did not interfere with the sentence with the following observation:-- "Where a legal sentence has been awarded and the discretion has been properly exercised, generally speaking, this Court seldom interferes with the sentence awarded to a convict." We are, therefore, of the view there is no justification for enhancement of the sentence. Accordingly the Appeal No.8 of 1993 filed by the State is dismissed. This Appeal No.9 of 1993 is against acquittal of Walayat Khan, Jan Muhammad, Ikramuddin, Azam Khan, Arif and Fida Muhammad. At the time of admission, the appeal against Ikramuddin and Azam Khan was not pressed by learned State counsel and was dismissed as such. Now, there remains Walayat Khan, Jan Muhammad, Arif and Fida Muhammad. Walayat Khan and Jan Muhammad were Security Controller and Security Inspector respectively in S.P.L. The shortage of B.B.N. sheets was detected in Warehouse of P.S.P.C. and not of S.P.L. Nothing substantial has been brought on record to connect abovenamed persons with said shortage. It is true that P.W. Qaisar Hussain has produced seven deliyery slips bearing signatures of Jan Muhammad and Walayat Khan, but there is no date on these slips as such, they are of no evidentiary value. It is not known that on which dates these slips were signed. It was usual duty of abovenamed persons to sign such slips. Besides, it is not the case of prosecution that those sheets were removed from S.P.L. Therefore, we are of the view that above-named persons, were rightly acquitted by learned trial Court. Appeal against their acquittal is dismissed. As regards Fida Muhammad, it is noted that evidence against him is of his retracted confession, which was recorded by Niaz Hussain Shah the then A.C.M. Karachi, East. The substance of confession is that, in the year 1980, Fida Muhammad used to work in a printing press at Peshawar. Haji Malik Munawar Afridi and Sakhi Muhammad had contacted him in the year 1985 to operate their printing machines at Dara Adam Khail. It is alleged that later on Malik Munawar Afridi asked him to print forged currency notes and he (Fida Muhammad) declined. Basically, major part of alleged confession is exculpatory and it pertains to the year 1985 which is not under consideration in f this matter. Accordingly, we held that learned trial Court was perfectly right to acquit him. The evidence against, Arif Hussain is that, at his instance, a camera was seized. According to the prosecution; negative films of Pakistan currency of Rs.100 were prepared in this camera. The evidence collected by prosecution showing his involvement is far from satisfactory. Any other camera of that make possibly could be used for said purpose. Learned trial Court did not believe this piece of evidence and we are also not satisfied with it. He was also rightly acquitted by learned trial Court. After hearing the arguments, on 14-7-1993 we had disposed of these appeals by the following short order:-- "Criminal Appeals Nos.2 of 1993, 4 of 1993, 6 of 1993 and 7 of 1993 by Hidayatullah, Malik Sikandar Awan, Major (Rtd.) Parvez Fazal and Malik Hayat respectively are dismissed. They shall, however, be given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Criminal Appeal No.8 of 1993 and Criminal Appeal No.9 of 1993 by State are also dismissed. Criminal Appeal No.5 of 1993 of Sahib Khan is allowed, his conviction and sentence are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. Criminal Appeal No3 to the extent of Tariq Altaf appellant is allowed, his conviction and sentence are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case, but it is dismissed in respect of Nabi Sher appellant. He shall be given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. By above short order we had disposed of all the appeals i.e. Criminal Appeals Nos.2 to 9 of 1993 and these are the reasons for the same. N.H.Q./103/SAC ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.