1990 P Cr (PLP)
MAZHAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Shed Hyder Ali Pirzada and Salhuddin Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MAZHAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Shed Hyder Ali Pirzada and Salhuddin Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (MAZHAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Azad Bin Haider for Appellant
- Dates of hearing: 4th, 7th and 18th September 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ‑‑‑‑Ss. 468 & 471‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Overwhelming evidence of Bank Officers and Officers of Income‑tax Department against accused was available on record and there was no reason to doubt their testimony who had no motive for false involvement of accused‑‑‑Conviction of accused was also not seriously contested‑‑‑Impugned judgment was well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Sentence awarded to accused in all the three cases was, however, reduced as the same appeared to be excessive. Munir Shah v. The State 1987 N L R (Criminal) (sic); Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1987 and Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1987 ref. (b) Criminal trial‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Recording of evidence‑‑‑Contention that evidence was recorded in one case whereas carbon copies were kept on record of other two cases which procedure was illegal, was repelled on the grounds that Presiding Officer had applied his mind independently to facts and circumstances of each case and that although all the three cases had been disposed of by one judgment, no miscarriage of justice had resulted and accused had not been adversely affected.‑‑‑[Evidence]. State v. Qalandar Khan P L D 1971 Pesh. 119 ref Jalaluddin Baloch for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, J.‑‑‑ This consolidated appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4‑3‑1989 passed by Special Court (Offences in Banks), Karachi in Cases Nos. 7 of 1988, 7‑A of 1988 and 8 of 1988 under section 468/471, P.P.C. convicting appellant Mazhar Hussain Shah in all the three cases and sentencing him as under: Case No. Section Sentence 7 of 1988 Under section 468, P.P.C. 4 years. Under section 471, P.P.C 1 year 7‑A of 1988 Under section 468, P.P.C. 4 years Under section 471, P.P.C. 1 year 8 of 1988 Under section 468, P.P.C. 4 years. Under section 471, P.P.C. 1 year Plus fine of Rs.30,000 or further R.I. for six months All the substantive sentences are to run concurrently whereas the imprisonment in default of payment of fine is to run subsequently.
2. The facts are that the appellant/accused was a clerical employee of Income‑tax Department, Karachi, and he had a PLS account with Habib Bank Ltd. J.P.M.C. Branch, Karachi (PLS Account No.11556‑0) and he committed the following acts of fraud and forgery: (a) Cheque No.D‑919388 dated 21‑3‑1988 issued by Accountant‑General Rs.15,000 was maintained, the imprisonment in default of payment thereof was reduced from six months to three months. We have considered this aspect. As for the appellant having not derived any pecuniary benefit, it is clear from the record that in one case (Case No. 8 of 1988) he did derive such benefit although the loss sustained by the bank was made good by the maternal‑uncle of the appellant and. in other two cases; if the appellant did not derive any benefit, it was not due to any good intentions on his part but due to the vigilance of State Bank and Habib Bank. Even so, the sentence awarded to the appellant appears to be excessive in the light of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1987. We would, I therefore, reduce the sentence, in all the three cases, under section 468, P.P.C. from four years to two years and under section 471, P.P.C. from one year to six C months and the amount of fine is reduced from rupees thirty thousand to rupees ten thousand and in default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo further R.I. of two months. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑983/K Appeal dismissed.