1975 P Cr (PLP)

Ali Raza Shah, the Mukhtiarkar denied having signed this receipt but stated that the signature on the receipt resembled his signature. On B such statement having been made by Ali Raza Shah the witness was asked) to produce 3 documents which were admittedly signed by the witness. These three documents are a show‑cause notice given to the appellant in regard to his services, and other notices which had been given to the appellant by Ali Raza Shah, the Mukhtiarkar. It appears that these documents were brought on the record by the appellant with a view to facilitate comparison of the signature of Ali Raza Shah on the disputed document viz. the receipt (Exh. 9) with the admitted signature on the other three documents viz. Exhs. 24, 25 and

26. On the point of identity of signature on the disputed receipt the appellant examined Sikandar Ali, the Sub‑Treasurer of the Tehsil Warah. This defence witness had in his custody the specimen signatures of Ali Raza Shah and he had brought the same to the Court. This document was however, not brought on record either by the appellant or by the prosecutor but the defence witness clearly stated while he was sub‑treasurer he became acquainted with the signature and the handwriting of Mukhtiarkar Ali Raza Shah. He carried out the comparison of the signatures which the witness had in his custody and on such comparison the witness stated that the disputed receipt bore the signatures of Ali Raza Shah. On such state of facts, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 15,374.32 had not been deposited by the appellant with the Mukhtiarkar. In regard to the receipt the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant may have obtained the signature of Mukhtiarkar Ali Raza Shah in a routine manner by placing a bundle of papers before him or may have fabricated this document. It will be of benefit to reproduce the following passage from the judgment :‑ "Even if it is conceded that the disputed challan used as receipt has some marks of resemblance with the signature of the Mukhtiarkar when compared with the other official record it can conveniently be made out that, the accused must have taken the signature of the Mukhtiarkar in the routine while placing a bundle of papers before the Mukbtiarkar for signatures. In case the Mukhtiarkar had received the amount for deposit. as, pleaded in defence, he should have passed regular receipt but not a receipt on challan which was meant for submission to the Treasury for the deposit of the amount. It is not denied by the accused that, he has made all the entries in, the challan Exh. 9 including the words that, this copy was being passed to the tapedar as a receipt. The only writing on the challan is the signature of the Mukhtiarkar. If at all it is a genuine signature, it on the contrary makes out this document to have been forged and fabricated with a dishonest intention, for the Mukhtiarkar was not expected to pass a receipt on the challan. The very words of using the challan as a receipt are written by him which the accused has admitted to be In his hand writing. The preparation of this document to show the passing of the money proves that the accused is really a very clever man who after having absconded from duty after his transfer from this tapa must have managed this document :)y some means to keep himself on the safe side. It further proves, "is consciousness that, he had really pocketed this amount and wanted to retain the same in his pocket." The above passage from the judgment of the learned Special Judge indicates that the learned Judge was of the view that the appellant had prepared this receipt and obtained the signature of Mukhtiarkar while the latter was unwary in regard to the document. The Special Judge assumed that the appellant was a very clever man so that he managed this document by some means to keep himself safe from the penalty of law. With regard to the evidence of Ali Raza Shah, the learned Special Judge was of the opinion that lie had made very honest and straightforward statement in regard to the signature on the receipt but the learned Judge all the same went on to observe in the judgment that if this receipt had been a genuine document the same should have been produced by the appellant at an early stage and not at the stage of trial. In regard to the evidence of Sikandar Ali, the Sub‑Treasurer who identified the signature of Ali Raza Shah on the disputed receipt the trial Judge observed as follows :‑ It makes no difference for the signature of the Mukhtiarkar is either made in the routine or has been forged in a successful manner. On reading of the judgment of the Special Judge I am of the view that the Special Judge was almost certain that the signature of the disputed document was of Ali Raza Shah but he has assumed that the appellant must have obtained the signature of Ali Raza Shah on the receipt by deceit. To say the least this was not the case of the prosecution. The prosecution case was that the amount had been misappropriated by the appellant. Even Ali Raza Shah, the Mukhtiarkar has not stated in his evidence that his signature has been fraudulently obtained by the appellant. He candidly stated that the signature on the disputed receipt resembled his signature. What is more that three documents were brought on record which bore the signatures of Ali Raza shah but the learned Judge did not compare these admitted signatures with the disputed signature on the receipt. In any case the learned Judge does not express that he had under taken such a comparison. The learned Advocate for the appellant invited me to compare the signature on the disputed receipt kith the admitted signatures on the three documents that were brought on the record at the instance of the appellant while Ali Raza Shah was being cross‑examined. The learned State Counsel has also seen these signatures and he candidly stated that there was marked similarity as between the signature on the disputed receipt and the three admitted documents. I have also seen the said receipts and although no expert evidence is available for my assistance, I have found marked characteristics of similarity as between the signatures appearing on the disputed receipt and on the three admitted documents. It appears that even the learned trial Judge was of that view but has however refrained from expressing the same and for such reason assumed that the appellant had obtained the signature of Ali Raza Shah while the latter may have been carelessly sinning the documents produced by the appellant, a story which is neither the contention of the prosecution nor there is any support from the evidence available on the record.

5. The prosecution had further relied on the official routine where under the amount collected by the tapedars had to be deposited by them in the treasury without the Mukhtiarkar having to do anything in regard to t fie deposit. On that aspect of the case Ali Raza Shah was cross‑examined and he has stated as follows:-- The collection of assessment is the function of the tapedar. It is he who hits to credit it in the Government account. There is no such law that the Mukhtiarkar should take the assessment collected from the tapedar and deposit himself. Question.‑Whether there is any provision of law debarring the Mukhtiarkar from taking upon himself to deposit the land revenue assessment collected by the Tapedar in the treasury? Answer.‑These is no such specific provision lout the provision for collect ing the assessment by the Tapedar and crediting the same in the Government treasury shows that the Mukhtiarkar cannot accept the amount of tapedar in cash and deposit it himself." The same witness had stated that the receipt which is the disputed docu ment in this case is the prescribed printed form used for the purpose of deposit ing the amount in the treasury. He stated that either the collections are deposi ted in the Bank or Lt the sub‑treasury but since the disputed receipt bears no endorsement in regard to the deposit being made in the Bank it meant that the amount was to be deposited in the treasury and the witness further stated that he as the Mukhtiarkar was the head of the treasury as well as ex‑officio sub‑treasure officer. This would show that Mukhtiarkar Ali Raza Shah was himself the head of the sub‑treasury and for such reasons payment of the amount to the Mukhtiarkar would be as good as payment in the treasury itself. On the other hand the defence witness Sikandar Ali who is also a sub‑treasurer has stated that in case the Tapedar leaves the land revenue assessment collected by him with the Mukhtiarkar the latter gets the same deposited in the treasury through the Supervising Tapedar or the Kotar. In like terms is the evidence of Bashir Ahmed who had been working as a Tapedar for about 20 years and was the President of the Tapedars' Association of Larkana District. This defence witness has also stated that sometimes the Mukhtiarkar collects the land revenue assessment from the Tapedars and deposits the same in the treasury in which csse he may sign on the copy of the challan in token of receipt. He has further stated that the Tapedar either deposits the amount himself or gets the same deposited through others. On such state of the facts it is abundantly clear that the Tapedar either deposits the amount collected by him directly in the treasury or gets the same deposited trough the Mukhtiarkar or Supervising Tapeder or Kotar. In fact the Mukhtiarkar is the head of the sub‑treasury, and as such the deposit of the amount with the Mukhtiarkar by itself will be good deposit. The learned trial Judge has observed in his judgment that this receipt (Exh. 9) does not bear the stamp of the sub‑treasury and for such reason it cannot be termed a genuine receipt. In my view this is completely misconceived. The case of the appellant was that he had paid the amount to the Mukhtiarkar for being deposited in the treasury, and since the Mukhtiarkar who is the head of the treasury had given him a signed receipt, it did not the matter whether a seal was borne on the receipt because the receipt is on the regular printed form used for the purpose of depositing the amount in treasury, In my view this inference from the facts was absolutely unjustified.

6. Lastly, the prosecution had relied on the circumstance that the appellant had not made entries in regard to the collection in the daily book. The appellant has stated that he had not been able to make the entries because the record was seized by the Mukhtiarkar. There is a background to this case and that is that in the month of February 1967 the appellant had been removed from service for reasons which are not clear on the record. The appellant had filed a suit in the Civil Court and obtained an injunction restraining the appointing authority from compelling the appellant to handover the charge. Such action of the appellant in filing the suit was resented by the Deputy Collector and actually the Mukhtiarkar Ali Raza Shah had made a report to the Deputy Collector stating that the appellant was flouting the orders of the superior officers. Thereafter the appellant was immediately transferred and it is stated that he did not submit the record nor did he formally hand over the charge. No doubt this may amount to disobedience of lawful orders passed by the superior officers but it cannot be forgotten that the appellant was in the meantime making efforts to retain his job and for such reasons may have ill‑advisedly retained the record with him. In any case the receipt of the amount by Mukhtiarkar is a total defence for the appellant because such receipt appears to be genuine. Under what circumstances the Mukhtiarkar had signed this receipt is not for this Court to determine but even the trial Judge was of the same opinion, although he may not have expressed it in so many words that the disputed receipt was signed by the Mukhtiarkar. In regard to the appellant having failed to make entries in the daily book the same may amount to dereliction of duty but falls short of making out a crime.

7. The learned State counsel has candidly expressed that tie receipt appeared to be genuine and there are marked characteristics of similarity as between the signature on this dispute and the other admitted documents. I agree with him and hold that the prosecution has not been able to make out a case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant deserves the benefit of a reasonable doubt and consequent acquittal.

8. In the result the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is hereby set aside and he is acquitted. The appellant is on bail and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Appeal accepted.