1970 PLP 826 (SCMR)

M. R. KHAN, J.‑The petitioner Nazimuddin was a clerk cum‑salesman of the show room of the Dacca Central Jail. He was tried along with Tobarakullah Bhuiyan who was the Superin tendent of Babur Hat State Orphanage under Police Station Chandpur in the district of Comilla. Tobarakullah was charged under sections 409 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code, but the petitioner was charged under sections 467 and 409/109 of the said Code. They were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge and Ex‑Officio Special Judge of Comilla. Both of them were convicted and sentenced for the offences for which they were tried. Their convictions and sentences were upheld on appeal by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of East Pakistan. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court. Tobarakullah also filed a petition for special leave to appeal, but his petition was dismissed on the 30th of the last month. The prosecution case was that Tobarakullah who had been entrusted with a sum of Rs. 8,500 by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Chandpur to purchase some blankets for the Babur Hat State Orphanage, purchased from the petitioner 245 blankets for the sum of Rs. 4,338.95 at the rate of Rs. 17.71, each under cash memo. No. 22, dated the 26th January 1963. In order, however, to make wrongful gain, Tobarakullah, in collusion with Nazimuddin, fabricated a false cash memo. bearing No. 38 showing a sale of 264 pieces of blankets for a sum of Rs. 6,468 at the rate of Rs. 24.50, each. It was alleged .that Tobarakullah misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,129.05 by submitting a bill, dated the 29th January 1963, for the inflated sum of Rs. 6,468, along with the fabricated cash memo. The precise case against the petitioner was that he had forged the cash memo. No. 38, dated the 26th January 1963, which was originally issued for the purchase of only one blanket on the 31st January 1963, from the Dacca Central Jail for Rs. 24.50. The cash memo. No. 22, dated the 26th January 1963, showing the sale of 245 pieces of blankets for the. sum of Rs. 4,338.95 granted by the petitioner was found by both the Courts to be a genuine cash memo. On the said date, there were only 247 pieces of blankets in the stock of the show room of the Dacca. Central Jail, vide the Stock Register (Exh. 4). Again, the Sale Register (Exh. 3) showed a sale of 245 pieces of blankets on the said date. The Courts below, therefore, rightly held that on the 26th January 1966, there could not be any sale of as many as 264 pieces of blankets as evidenced by the questioned cash memo. No. 3&. They were equally right in taking the view that the questioned cash memo. No. 38, dated the 26th January 1963 was a forged document, whoever might be its author. Both the Courts below found on evidence that the cash memo. No. 38 was forged by the petitioner pursuant to a collusion between him and his co‑accused Tobarakullah. This case memo was sent to a Handwriting Expert alone with the specimen writings, signatures and initials of the petitioner. The genuine cash memo was also sent to him. The opinion of the Handwriting Expert that the questioned cash memo. No. 38 was in the handwriting, of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend, that the opinion of the Handwriting Expert was not definite and that it was not corroborated by any independent evidence and as such, the petitioner was entitled to an acquittal. It is not correct to say that the opinion of the Handwriting Expert was not definite. He categorically stated that the writings in the cash memo. tally with specimens writings of the petitioner and his admitted handwriting in the genuine cash memo. No. 22, dated the 26th January 1963. The cash memo. No. 38 also bore the: seal of the show room of the Dacca Central Jail. As the petitioner was the salesman of the show room, the below were right in taking the view that the seal could not have been affixed on cash memo. No. 38 without the knowledge and assistance of the petitioner. This furnished corroboration anon of the evidence of the Handwriting, expert, as held by the Courts below. The guilt of the petitioner was thus establish by satisfactory evidence. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.