1989 PLP 2847 (MLD)

On 11th June, 1979 the appellant was serve with a relieving order and hew as unf6rmed that he stood relieved from service with effect from 11-6-1979 (forenoon). The order has been produced as Exh.19. In cross-examination this witness has admitted that application Exh.7 bears the signature of the appellant. He has further admitted that in this application the appellant had prayed for promotion purely on the ground of his experience. He has further admitted that EA.9 relates to the production of certain documents only and the appellant has not stated that because he has cleared his graduation therefore, he should be promoted. It was further deposed by the witness that in Exh.10 the appellant has stated that on demand he has already submitted the graduation certificate because Head Office demanded, but he has not stated that because he has cleared his graduation he should be promoted. He has further admitted that in Exh.11 the appellant has stated that during the past two years there had been number of promotions on regional basis wherein his seniority was not considered. Because he had not graduated at that time. He has further stated that in his recommendation Exh.12 he has mentioned that keeping in view the past experience of the appellant he may be considered for promotion. In reply to another question he has stated that he does not remember the rule under which it was decided that non-graduate should not be promoted. That there was no notification to that effect, but only rule was framed by the Corporation. He has further admitted that one Zahoor Afghan who was also promoted as Deputy Manager was found to have produced a forged BA. Degree, and a case against him was registered with F.I.A. Subsequently be was not challaned and the case was closed. He has produced photostat copy of the note of the Chairman addressed to the Ministry of production in respect of Zahoor Afghan as Exh.20. He has further stated that he does not recall any instance by which even a non-Matric was prompted as Deputy Manager, but there may be instances in which the matriculate persons were promoted as Deputy Manager. He has stated that he knows that Zahoor Afghan is presently working as Deputy Manager. He has produced a photostat copy of memorandum as Exh.21. That the appellant had worked for sometime in officiating capacity as Deputy Manager for which he was paid officiating allowance at 10%. P.W. 3 Arif Rizvi has stated that at the relevant time he was Controller of Examinations University of Karachi. At the request of General Manager P.I.D.C. he had verified the record with regard to Seat No. 1973 of B.A. Examination in the year 1974. The record shows that one Miss Rizwana Firdous had appeared in BA. Examination in the year 1974 with Seat No. 1973. He has produced photostat copy of marks-sheet Exh.23. In this marks-sheet, Seat No. 1973 which was allotted to Miss Rizwana Firdous is mentioned and Enrolment No.2424/BA/72 allotted to Mr. Shaukat Ali. According to him letter Exh.16 was signed by Mr. M. Nasir Hussain the then Controller of Examinations University of Karachi, and he was fully conversant with his signatures. In cross-examination he has stated that he did not make any statement to any Police Officer till the day he was examined in Court. He has further stated that it is correct that on receipt.. of summon from this Court he simply checked the Seat No. and Registration No. i.e. 1973 and 2425/BA/72, respectively. He did not check the seat number and registration of other students. It is not to his knowledge that any action was taken against any member of the Staff by the University of Karachi for interpolation. P.W.4 Asrar-ur-Rehman has deposed that on 17-1-1976 he was working as Assistant in P.I.D.C., Karachi. That Exh.9 is the application of appellant Sikandar Ali the then Assistant Manager, Lasbella Textile Mills, Uthal. The same was marked to him by the Manager for filing the same in personal file of the appellant. According to him this application was accompanied by Matriculation certificate and B.A. Degree of the appellant. He entered the application in service sheet of the appellant. He has produced the service sheet of the appellant as Exh.25. He has also produced duplicate of personal record form- of the appellant as Exh.26. In cross-examination he has stated that he was working in P.I.D.C. since 1958. He has admitted that he never worked with the appellant in the same room at any time. Mostly the appellant had worked outside the office and he had never worked with him. He had never undergone the training of handwriting expert. The form Exh.26 was not filled in by the appellant in his presence. He has further stated the qualification of Assistant Manager was graduate and two years experience. This was in respect of employees who were appointed after 25-12 1975. He further admitted that prior to 1975, employees used to get promotion even upto the grade of Deputy Managing by way of experience. He has further stated that it is correct that Exh.13 was a result of discussion with the Chairman and Manager Director Pak. Iran Textile Mills. The accused/appellant was promoted as Deputy Manager. It is correct that it is not written in Exh.13 that accused/appellant was being promoted because he was a graduate. P.W.5 Khalid Rasool was Inspector F.I.A. and used to work as handwriting expert. He has 'deposed that on 6-1-1980, he received the documents pertaining to this case viz. the original application dated 24-1-1976, Original duplicate personal record form dated 26-5-1974, and the questioned documents which were produced as Exhs.9 and 26 were shown to him and he stated that these were the same. He also received specimen signatures of the accused in three leaves which he has produced as Exh.31. After comparison of questioned signatures Exh.9 he came to the conclusion that it was similar in characteristics with corresponding specimen signatures on Exh.31. He also found similar characteristics in Exh.26 with that of specimen writing. He has produced his report as Exh.32. In cross-examination he has stated that he was appointed in F.I.A. in the year 1975 and his service could be terminated by F.I.A. He has further admitted that he does not have any foreign diploma on this subject. He has further stated that he considers Mr. Osborn as authority. It is correct that as described by Mr. Osborn in his book there are variations m handwriting of the same person. That he had not seen the accused writing in his presence. He received questioned documents and specimen signatures by post in envelope. It was correct that letter does not show if this envelope was received under sealed cover nor he could himself say if the documents were received under sealed cover. That the Director Technical is his Boss who is also an expert. P.W.6 Mr. M.A. Tatari has deposed that on 10-3-1979 he was Inspector in F.IA. CC.1, Karachi. On that day he registered F.I.R. t)f this case on behalf of the State and the same has been produced as Exh.36. He searched for the appellant but in the meantime he had obtained bail before arrest, and thereafter, he was interrogated. He recorded the statement of witnesses Israr-ur-Rehman, Muhammad Maujood, Muhammad Shaukat Ali, Miss Rizwana Firdous, and Arif Rizvi. He secured the personal file of the accused from P.W. Muhammad Maujood, Exh.26 was the same. He took specimen writing of the accused before the Magistrate and sent the same to the handwriting expert for comparison. On 13-11-1984, the appellant was challaned and the challan has been produced as Exh.37. After close of the prosecution case statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegation. He has further stated that the then General Manager Mr. Maujood, who is complainant in this case was against him because he has personal grudge with Sindhis, whereas he is a Punjabi. During Martial Law three Sindhi Officers namely, Dr. Sami Siddiqui, Manager, appellant; himself, and his younger brother Khursheed were picked up, by Mr. Maujood and dismissed from service. In the entire P.I.D.C. the ratio of Sindhi Officers was not more than 2%. He has further stated that in the year 1973 he was promoted as Deputy Manager, Machine Tool Factory to the displeasure of Muhammad Maujood, who deliberately got his personal file misplaced. He was again reverted after three months due to missing of his personal file: He made several applications against Muhammad Maujood which he shall produce during the course of the day. That the learned trial Judge while relying upon the above evidence convicted the appellant as described above, and the present appeal is directed against the said conviction. I have heard Mr. A.Q. Halepota, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Jatoi, learned counsel for the State, and have also gone through the record. Mr. A.Q. Halepota learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously challenged the evidence produced by the prosecution, but has pressed for reduction of sentence. He has contended that the appellant had suffered agony of protracted trial, had lost his job, and had also remained in jail for three days after conviction. In support of his contention he has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court, Mr. Habibullah v. The State P L D 1985 Kar.

680. Mr. A.K. Jatoi learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the judgment of conviction. According to him the trial Judge has already taken a lenient view and therefore, the sentence awarded was adequate. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. On merits there is ample ocular as well as documentary evidence against the appellant, and the prosecution had proved it's case beyond any reasonable doubt. The judgment of the trial Court, therefore, does not call for any interference. However, I have given my anxious thought to the question of sentence. I have come to the conclusion that the substantive sentence should be reduced to one already undergone, due to the following reasons. Admittedly the appellant is an educated person and enjoyed the post of Assistant Manager for number of years, as well as Deputy Manager for nearly three years. The F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant on 10-3-1979. He was served with a dismissal order on 6-6 1979 and was relieved of his duties on 11th June, 1979. The case was challaned in the Court on 13-11-1984 and the trial was concluded on 11th August, 1985. The appeal also took nearly two years and was disposed of on 7-5-1987. The appellant has remained in custody for three days after his conviction. In M. Habibullah v. The State P L D 1985 Kar.-680, a Division Bench of this Court while relying upon 1972 S C M R 118, held that:- "In fact for accused's faction of society, loss of job or in other words freezing up of the source of livelihood is a great blow of life which serves as punishment not only for the accused himself but also for his family although the latter are not to be blamed for the accused's acts of ommission and commissions. Furthermore, out of two years' imprisonment awarded to the accused he has already undergone imprisonment for three months. Above all this, the appellant's position in society has received a serious jolt on account of his conviction, and his no ignorance igonminious ouster from the Bank service. Under the circumstances the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one already undergon." While respectfully agreeing with the above view, and looking to the circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice require that the substantive sentence of the appellant should be reduced to one already undergone, and I order accordingly. The appellant shall pay the fine of Rs.500 and 1,000 as ordered by the trial Court and in default he shall undergo further R.I. for one month and two months respectively. I had decided the above appeal on 7-5-1987 by a short order, and these are the reasons for the same. N.H.Q./S-390/K Order accordingly.