1989 P Cr (PLP)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑ Appellant Muhammad Haroon Rehmani has filed this appeal against impugned judgment, dated 25‑7‑1987 of Special Court (Offences in Banks), Karachi, whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:‑ (i) For offence under section 420; P.P.C., appellant is convicted and sentenced to R.I. for six years and a fine of Rs.15 lacs or in default R.I. for 18 months; . (ii) For offence under section 477‑A, P.P.C., appellant is convicted and sentenced to R.I. for five years. It is directed that both sentences are to run concurrently, while sentence in default of payment of fine shall start running after expiry of substantive sentences of imprisonment. By the same impugned judgment mentioned above, trial Court has convicted Abdul Qudus for offence under section 420 read with 34, P.P.C. and has sentenced him to R.I. for 2‑1/2 years and fine of Rs.2 lacs. In default of payment of fine, he would undergo R.I. for four months. Abdul Qudus has filed a separate appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1987 challenging his conviction and sentence. In the trial Court six persons were put on trial including Muhammad Haroon Rehmani and Abdul Qudus. Vide the same impugned judgment remaining four persons namely Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Munaf, Abdul Majid and Abdul Qadir have been acquitted for offences of cheating and falsification of accounts. Prosecution case as depicted in F.I.R. and briefly stated is that appellant Muhammad Haroon Rehmani was working in the United Bank Limited, Stock Exchange Branch, Karachi as Machine Operator and was responsible for passing of cheques and other entries in the current deposit cards maintaining and balancing of ledger books and regular keeping of the records pertaining to current deposits account of the Branch. On 18‑2‑1985, Manager of the Branch on surprise checking found that balancing of the ledger was not made correctly and totalling made on balancing of ledger on 31‑1‑1985 was fictitious. Matter was reported to the higher‑ups and a Committee of four persons was formed to make a probe into the matter. Careful enquiry revealed that balancing and totalling of ledger was done fictitiously and record showed that various balances were reduced by way of tampering with figures and erasing entries. Balance Book and ledgers were being handled by appellant Muhammad Haroon, who on enquiry admitted orally and in writing his involvement in the misappropriation of huge funds by falsification of balance book since 1980. Preliminary enquiry further revealed that appellant Muhammad Haroon was maintaining following accounts: (i) CD Account No. 2218 at U.B.L., Stock Exchange Branch as Partnership Account under the name and style of Messrs National Medical Store with Munaf and Abdul. Qadir Sherwani as his partners; (ii) Partnership Account No. 1118 at U.B.L., F.B. Area Branch with Abdul Qudus and himself as partners; (iii) Partnership Account at M.C.B., Al‑Karam Branch, Federal `B' Area, Karachi under the name and style of Messrs Rehmani Commission Shop, with himself and Mr. Abdul Majeed as partners. It was further revealed that Muhammad Haroon used to deposit cheques of Account No. 2218 of U.B.L. Stock Exchange Branch in Account No.1118 at U.B.L., F.B. Area Branch as well as the aforementioned account at M.C.B., Al- Karam Branch, Karachi which were in turn presented for payment to U.B.L., Stock Exchange Branch through transfer delivery and clearing. After the clearance Muhammad Haroon used to destroy the cheques instead of recording the entries in the ledgers of Stock Exchange Branch and in order to balance the current deposit ledger, he used to tamper with figures and totals in the balance book. It appeared that Muhammad Haroon in connivance with others had managed to draw huge amounts and caused huge loss to the Bank approximately to tae tune of Rs.97,00,000 as admitted by himself. Facts revealed that other accomplices of Muhammad Haroon in these illegal acts were Abdul Majeed and Abdul Qadir Sherwani, Munaf Qudus and others. Complaint in writing containing facts stated above was filed with F.I.A. on 18‑2‑1985 by Mr. Arif Rasheed, Manager, U.B.L. Stock Exchange Branch, Karachi. In the result F.1.R. No.9/1985 was registered for offences under sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 477‑A read with section 5(2) of the Act II of 1947 against all accused persons mentioned in the complaint and investigation was taken in hand. Syed Shahid Hussain, Inspector, F.I.A. in the Banks Circle incorporated complaint in 154 register on 18th February, 1985 on the basis of written complaint from the Manager of the concerned Branch. On the same day he arrested Muhammad Haroon and Abdul Qadir and secured a small bag from Muhammad Haroon containing cash amount of Rs.3,312.70. On the following day he arrested Qudus, Munaf and Abdul Majeed. From the houses of Muhammad Haroon and Qudus, he secured household articles such as furniture, T.V. Fridge and Fans etc. It was found that both Muhammad Haroon and Oudus were brothers and lived in the same building. On 20‑2‑1985 Mst. Rabia mother of Muhammad Haroon and Oudus was restrained in writing from transferring the house of Muhammad Haroon and Qudus, which stood in her name. Honda Scooter No. KAS‑8064 70‑CC and Toyota Car bearing registration No. 144‑364 were seized. On 26‑2‑1985 Haji Ahmed produced an amount of Rs.7,50,000 which was secured. On the same day Washing Machine, one Colour TV were secured from the house of Munaf. From the house of Abdul Majeed one Washing Machine and one Fridge were secured. On the same day Muhammad Ashraf voluntarily produced one Fridge, one Washing Machine and one Colour TV. On the same day one Muhammad Amin son of Majid produced one Colour TV which was secured. Food‑grains from Rehmani Commission Shop maintained by Muhammad Haroon and Majeed were seized. Muhammad Younus produced Honda Scooter No.KAM‑838 50‑CC. Muhammad Farooq produced Honda Motorcycle No.KAM‑2783. Muhammad Ashraf produced Motorcycle No.KAM‑2781. Muhammad Farooq son of Ghaffar Memon produced Honda Motorcycle No.2128. On the same day Muhammad Farooq produced motorcycle No.KAM‑9700 and another motorcycle No.KAA‑

729. Food‑grains were secured from godown of Rehmani Commission Shop situated in House No. 480/3, Karimabad, Karachi. Mst. Rukhsana wife of Abdul Qudus produced Vespa Scooter NO.KAM‑4783. Yousuf Memon a relative of Muhammad Haroon produced an amount of Rs.1,00,

000. Medicines and other articles were seized from Yousuf Medical and General Store which was being maintained by Muhammad Haroon and Qudus. The shop was sealed. On 4‑3 1985 property seized as stated above from the houses of Muhammad Haroon and Qudus was handed over to U.B.L. authorities for keeping them in safe custody. Rs.2,546 were secured from the drawer of table from the house of Muhammad Haroon. On 7‑3‑1985 Mehran Medical and General Store was searched and medicines and other merchandise were seized. On 4‑3‑1985 Investigating Officer produced Muhammad Haroon before Mr. Nazar Muhammad, A.C.M., who recorded his judicial confession. Muhammad Haroon was sent to judicial custody after his confession was recorded. Various items of properties and cash were seized, during the entire investigation on the basis of judicial confession of Muhammad Haroon and statements of other accused persons and other witnesses. On 26‑3‑1985, 164, Cr.P.C. statement of P.W. Haji Ahmed was recorded before A.C.M. On 3‑4‑1985 record of CD Account No.797 was secured from H.B.L. Nayabad Branch. On the same day record of Account No.12922‑1 of H.B.L., Keamari Branch was secured. On 7‑4‑1985 record of U.B.L. Karimabad Branch pertaining to Account No.1118 was secured. On 9‑4‑1985 record of Account No.2261 maintained in U.B.L. Stock Exchange Branch was secured. On 10‑4‑1985 record of U.B.L., Stock Exchange Branch pertaining to T.T. and D.D. applications was secured. Several other amounts were secured from other persons which were produced by them voluntarily. On 6th August, 1985 papers were sent to Director, F.I.A. Technical Islamabad for comparison of handwriting and signatures of appellant Muhammad Haroon alongwith routine writings and signatures of six other accused persons who were put on trial. On 21‑8‑1985 after completion of all the steps of investigation, final challan was submitted in the Court in the year 1983. On 3‑10 1985 final challans were submitted in respect of years 1980, 81, 82, 84 and

85. On 10‑12‑1984 charge was framed in the trial Court and on 24‑5‑1987 amended charge was framed against all the six persons who were put on trial. According to the amended charge Abdul Majeed, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Haroon opened a joint Account No.2448 in the name and style of Messrs Rehmani Commission Shop with Stock Exchange Branch of U.B.L. at Karachi, where Muhammad Haroon was working as Machine Operator. Muhammad Munaf and Abdul Qadir opened a joint account bearing No.2218 with Stock Exchange Branch of U.B.L., Karachi and Abdul Qudus and Muhammad Haroon opened Account No.1118 on 26‑10‑1982 with Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. in the name and style of Messrs Yousuf Medical and General Store. From 1st January, 1983 till 28th December, 1983, accused persons so charged and named above deposited 17 cheques of the value of Rs.17,00,000 drawn on Accounts Nos. 2448 and 2218 in the said Account No.1118 in furtherance of common plan. Muhammad Haroon further knew well that Accounts Nos. 2448 and 2218 had no balances to make payment in respect of those 17 cheques and he destroyed those cheques and forwarded false credit advices to the clearing house for onward transmission to Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. for crediting Rs.17,00,000 in Account No.1118 and upon receipt of proceeds of the said 17 cheques at Karimabad Branch he withdrew from the said Account No. 1118 the said amount of Rs.17,00,000 or thereabouts and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said amount and thus caused a loss of Rs.17,00,000 to U.B.L. Stock Exchange Branch. Further in order to conceal fraud Muhammad Haroon falsified daily supplementary sheets of the said Branch by wrongly totalling the amounts. Accused persons were charged for offences punishable under section 420, P.P.C. and Muhammad Haroon was further charged for offence under section 477‑A, P.P.C. and further all accused persons were charged for offences under section 420/477‑A, P.P.C. read with section 34/109, P.P.C. In the trial Court prosecute examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 is Zaki Muhammad who was at the relevant time Vice‑President and Zonal Head of U.B.L. in Karachi and Stock Exchange Branch was under his supervision. He was deputed to make enquiry in respect of fraud committed in Stock Exchange Branch. He went there and was informed by Manager Arif Rasheed that appellant Muhammad Haroon had criminally misappropriated a sum of Rs.97,00,000 by manipulation in the totalling of daily sheets and by not debiting the cheques received in clearance to the accounts to which they related. Appellant Haroon confessed his guilt orally and in writing in presence of this witness as well as many other senior officers namely Badruddin, Shahzaman Khan and Wazarat Karim. Appellant also stated that from the amount so illegally gained, he had advanced loans to other persons and done some charity as well. This witness produced admission in writing of appellant Haroon Exh.2/C. P.W.2 is Arif Rasheed, who was Manager at the relevant time in the said Branch. According to this witness appellant was Machine Operator and as such was Incharge of CD ledger maintenance, posting of cheques and balancing of these ledgers. According to this witness, he checked balance book of the Branch in respect of CD ledger and found that they did not tally as there was difference in the total amount. He reported the matter to the Circle Executive. In response three officers namely Messrs Zaki Ahmed Shahzaman Khan and Wazarat Karim were sent for the purpose of investigation. This witness further deposed that appellant Haroon came to him and confessed his guilt orally as well as in writing. Modus operandi was that appellant Haroon had opened certain accounts in various names in the said Branch and he issued cheques in respect of those accounts in favour of other accounts which he had opened in other Banks and Branches. After receipt of such cheques for collection in the Stock Exchange Branch, which he received as Machine Operator, he did not debit those cheques to his account in question but passed the credit entry in respect of said cheques and forwarded to the Bank from where the said cheques were received and he destroyed the cheques received from other Banks and branches. He fitted the same amount in the supplementary sheet in such a way, that the accounts of the day would tally. On credit of proceeds of such cheques in other Banks and other Branches in the accounts opened by him he withdrew the said proceeds. He continued such operation from 1980 to 1985. This witness further produced a large number of documents relating to the Bank, which are on the record as Exhs.3/A to 3/N. P.W.3 is Abdul Razak, who deposed that property on Plot No.421/3. Karimabad/Federal `B' Area, Karachi stands in the name of his wife Mst. Rabid. Qudus and Sattar took one shop in the same building on rent in the name of Mst. Abida wife of Haroon in which Yousuf Medical Store was set up which was run by Qudus. P.W.4 is Abdul Majeed, who worked as Manager in the Stock Exchange Branch from September, 1980 till August, 1983. Appellant Haroon worked in the same Branch as Machine Operator. This witness further deposed after seeing Exhs.3/D and 3/D‑1 that Accounts Nos. 2218 and 2448 were approved for opening by him as Manager. Fraud was detected in the same Branch after he was transferred. This witness further described functions and duties of Machine Operator. P.W.5 is Syed Ahsan Hussain , who was working as, an officer in the Stock Exchange Branch from 1978 till May 1985. In respect of Exhs.3/D and 3/D‑1 he deposed that both these accounts were opened by him in the name of National Medical Store and Rehmani Commission Shop. This witness further deposed that handwriting and signatures in Exh.3/D and 3/D‑1 were of appellant Haroon. He described the duties of appellant as Machine Operator and stated that after discovery of fraud appellant Haroon admitted his guilt in his presence orally as well as in writing. P.W.6 is Mr. Shankar Lal, Additional City Magistrate, who recorded 164, Cr.P.C. statement of P.W. Haji Ahmed son of Haji Habib Exh.7/A in presence of accused persons who were offered opportunity to cross‑examine the witness. P.W.7 is Jafar son of Ismail, who has deposed that in the years 1983, 84 and 85 he was working as a Cashier in Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. Appellant Haroon had in that Branch Account No. 1118 in the name of Yousuf Medical and General Store. He produced 48 cheques drawn on that account in the year 1984 as Exhs.8/A to 8/A‑

47. P.W.8 is Javed Hassan, who was working as IInd Officer in Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. in October 1982. This witness further stated that Account No.1118 in the name of Yousuf Medical and General Store was authorised for opening by the then Manager Razak Phatani whose signature was identified by him. He further deposed that the said account was opened as partnership account and appellant Haroon signed as partner. P.W.9 is Sirajuddin, who deposed that he had worked in F.B. Area/Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. as Current Deposit Incharge. He saw Exh.3/F pertaining to Account No. 1118 and stated that this account was opened in the names of Abdul Qudus and Haroon, whose signatures were identified by him in the opening account form. He saw deposit slips Exhs.3/G to Exh.3/G‑11 and stated that those slips were in respect of cheques deposited in Account No.1118 and were received and checked by him. Cheques deposited under the above pay‑in‑slips were all drawn on the Stock Exchange Branch of U.B.L. After these cheques were cleared by the Stock Exchange Branch payments were made. Again said payments were not made but amounts of the cheques were credited into the account of account‑holders. Amounts of cheques deposited in Account No.1118 were withdrawn through cheques with signatures of Qudus as drawer. This witness identified signatures of appellant Haroon in acknowledgement of receiving the amounts of cheques Exhs.8/A, 8/A‑10, 8/A‑12, 8/A‑15, 8/A‑20, 8/A‑23, 8/A‑29, 8/A‑31, 8/A‑38 to 8/A‑40 and 8/A‑42 to 8/A‑

47. Likewise on other cheques, he identified signatures of Qudus. This witness further stated that all cheques on C.D. accounts came to him for verification before appellant. He admitted that all the cheques Exhs.8/A‑1 to 8/A‑47 were verified by him excepting Exhs.8/A, 8/A‑8, 8/A‑13, 8/A‑24, 8/A‑37, 8/A‑40, 8/A‑42 to 8/A‑

46. P.W.10 is Syed Shahid Hussain, Investigating Officer and his evidence will be mentioned in the end after evidence of all other witnesses is covered. P.W.11 is Muhammad Motan, who was working as Cashier in Stock Exchange Branch of U.B.L. from 1979 till 1983. He knew appellant Haroon very well who was working with him in the same Branch as Machine Operator. This witness needed money as his father had sustained loss in business. He approached Haroon for loan and Haroon gave him an amount of Rs.50,

000. During the investigation by F.IA. he returned the amount of loan received from Haroon. P.W.12 is Haji Ahmed, who deposed that he knew appellant Haroon and Munaf as they were introduced to him by Haji Younus. Haroon and Munaf were interested in the business of iron and steel and had deposited with this witness total amount of Rs.7,50,000 for the purchase of iron. Ships were delayed and iron could not reach Karachi. After investigation was taken in hand by F.IA., this witness handed over money to the I.O. P.W. 13 is Nazar Mohammad, Additional City Magistrate. He recorded judicial confession of appellant Haroon who was produced before him by F.I.A. on 4‑3‑1985. He took all the necessary precautions and administered warnings as required under the law. After giving time for reflection and satisfying himself that confession proposed to be given by appellant was voluntary, he recorded the confession, which was produced by him m the Court as Exh‑14/A. Now we take up the evidence of 1.0. Syed Shahid Hussain, F.I.A. Inspector in the Banks Circle was examined in the trial Court as P.W.

10. On 18 2‑1985 he received written complaint from the Manager of URL, Stock Exchange Branch, Karachi. He incorporated the complaint in 154 Cr.P.C. register. He also went to the Stock Exchange Branch of U B L and arrested appellant Haroon and Abdul Qadir. On 19‑2‑1985 he arrested Qudus, Munaf and Abdul Majeed. He made searches of the houses of accused persons and recovered household articles including furniture, T.Vs and Fridges etc. He recorded statements of witnesses. Appellant Haroon had advanced money as loans to many persons, who admitted the same and returned such monies. I.O. also recovered Motor Cycles from persons which were purchased by them from monies advanced by appellant. He seized properties and stores which were purchased or being maintained by appellant Haroon and other co‑accused directly or indirectly from the money misappropriated from the Bank. I.O. also produced appellant before the Magistrate for recording of his judicial confession. I.O. also collected huge bulk of documents in support of fraud committed by appellant Haroon and his accomplices in the said Branch of the Bank. On 3‑10 1985 I.O. submitted final challans in respect of misappropriations made in the years 1980, 81, 82, 84 and

85. In the trial Court in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. appellant has proclaimed innocence and false implication in the case. Appellant has admitted working as Machine Operator in Stock Exchange Branch of URL and opening of joint Account No.2448 with U.B.L., Stock Exchange Branch and Account No.1118 with U.B.L., Federal 'B' Area Karimabad Branch. He has also admitted that Account No.2218 was in the name of National Medical Store and was being operated by co‑accused Mohammad Munaf and Abdul Qadir. He further admitted depositing cheques in Account No.1118 and drawing on Accounts Nos.2448 and 2218. He denied knowledge that funds were insufficient in Account No.2448 and 2218 and further denied allegation that he destroyed cheques and claimed that he had no concern with preparation of sheets, which showed difference of Rs.17 lacs in the cash position. He admitted having made confession before the Manager but claimed that it was given under pressure of threats. Appellant also stated that he made the confession before the Magistrate because he was beaten by Police Officer and was threatened. He denied allegation of conspiracy between him and other co‑accused to defraud the Bank. He denied having given money to Haji Ahmed but admitted that Hanif Motan had taken loan from him of Rs.50,

000. Names of 16 persons were mentioned alongwith amounts recovered from them during the investigation and appellant admitted that some of those amounts recovered were his, as he had advanced loans to them. In respect of admission in writing Exh.3/C delivered to P.W. Zaki Ahmed, appellant admitted that the same was in his handwriting but was made by him in presence of police. It may be mentioned here that statement of appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 12‑2‑1987 and on that day he made an application in writing in the trial Court requesting that statement written by him separately should be treated as part of his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. This request was allowed by the trial Court. This statement written by appellant on one leaf of school note book with green ball point is available in the record of the trial Court of Case No.9/85 (Exhibit Part) but perhaps inadvertently is not included in the paper book. Perusal of this statement shows that appellant has claimed that he had no concern whatsoever with Clearing Department and he was compelled to make admission on threats and promise that he would be reinstated and further he made confession before Magistrate on account of pressure of police. No other witness was examined in defence. We have heard at length Mr. Abdul Sattar Pingar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Hazaratji for Attorney‑General for State. Prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt and overwhelming evidence has been produced to connect appellant with commission of crime alleged against him. In the trial Court in this case charge against the appellant was that from 1st January, 1983 to 28th December, 1983, while he was working as Machine Operator in Stock Exchange Branch of URL. at Karachi, pursuant to conspiracy with his accomplices, he deposited 17 cheques of the value of Rs.17,00,000 drawn on Accounts Nos. 2448 and 2218 in Account No.1118, knowing fully that both Accounts Nos. 2448 and 2218 had no balances to make good these 17 cheques, which were destroyed. Appellant also forwarded false credit advices to the clearing house for onward transmission to Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. for crediting Rs.17,00,000 in Account No.1118 and upon receipt of proceeds of the said 17 cheques at Karimabad Branch, he withdrew from the said Account No.1118 a sum of Rs.17,00,000 or thereabouts and thus committed criminal breach of trust causing loss of that amount to U.B.L. Stock Exchange. Branch. Appellant also falsified supplementary sheets of the said Branch by deliberately and wrongly totalling the amounts mentioned therein and also falsified entries in the general ledger. There is no dispute about the point that at the relevant time, appellant Haroon was working as Machine Operator in Stock Exchange Branch of U.B.L. While working as such his duties included to prepare list of cheques received from clearing by jotting down the amounts and passing to the respective C.D. Incharge for checking. C.D. Incharge after checking passed cheques for posting. C.D. Incharge also checked credit advices sent to the clearing house. Credit advices were to be sent on the basis of balance available of account holders and such information was supplied by the Machine Operator. This was so stated by P.W.1 Zaki Ahmed, Vice‑President and Zonal Head of U.B.L. in City Zone Karachi and Stock Exchange Branch was under his supervision. P.W.2 Arif Rasheed, Manager' of Stock Exchange Branch of U.B.L. deposed that appellant has worked in the said Branch as Machine Operator from 1978 till the time he was taken in the custody in this case. He further described duties of Machine Operator as Incharge of C.D. ledger maintenance, posting of cheques and balancing of ledgers. P.W.4 Abdul Majeed deposed before the trial Court that he was working as Manager in Stock Exchange Branch of U.B.L. from September 1980 till August 1983 and appellant Haroon was working in the said Branch as Machine Operator. While describing duties of the appellant, this witness testified that as Machine Operator appellant received all cheques from clearing for cash or transfer delivery and made necessary postings in the ledgers. It was his duty to total the amounts of cheques, received in clearing as well as transfer delivery and post them and return the cheques which could not be passed for one reason or the other. He was to make periodic balances of all ledgers as Incharge and prepare supplementary sheets in respect of cheques received for clearing and transfer delivery and make totals of amounts daily. P.W.5 Syed Ahsan Hussain deposed that before the incident he worked in the same Branch and also worked under him. He has explained as to what were the duties of the appellant as Machine Operator. So far Accounts Nos. 2218 and 2448 are concerned, P.W.2 Arif Rasheed testified before the trial Court that these accounts were opened by appellant and his co‑accused in the Stock Exchange Branch. He produced photo copies of account opening forms of these two accounts as Exh.3/D and 3/D‑

1. He also produced specimen signatures of account‑holders in respect of these two accounts. He further stated that Abdul Majeed, Muhammad Amin and Haroon opened jointly Account No. 2448 and Account No.2218 was opened jointly by Munaf and Abdul Qadir. Two cheque books on the basis of requisition slips Exhs.3/E and 3/E‑1 were issued. Nine cheques from Account No.2448 and eight cheques from Account No.2218 were received for collection from Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. where Account No. 1118 was opened in the name of Yousuf Medical and General Store by appellant Haroon. He produced account opening form of Account No. 1118 and specimen signature card of the said account as Exh.3/F and 15 pay‑in‑slips by which 17 cheques in question were deposited in Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. in Account No.1118, which were forwarded to Stock Exchange Branch for payment as Exhs.3/G to 3/G‑

14. He produced photo copy of original ledger in respect of Account No. 1118 in which 17 cheques were credited by clearance and subsequently this amount was withdrawn by appellant Haroon as Exh.3/H. This witness further deposed that 17 cheques issued on Accounts Nos.2218 and 2448 which were received for clearance and payment from Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. were destroyed by appellant after he sent intimation of credit in respect of those cheques to Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. by manipulating these supplementary sheets of the said dates which were produced as Exhs. 3/I, 3/I‑I, 3/I‑2 to 3/I‑13 and reconstituted supplementary sheets showing the correct and true position on those dates as Exhs.3/J to 3/J‑1 to 3/J‑

13. By not debiting these 17 cheques to Accounts Nos. 2218 and 2448, appellant committed criminal breach of trust to the tune of Rs.17,00,000 in the year 1983. This witness further identified handwriting and initial of the appellant on the manipulated supplementary sheets Exhs.3/1 to 3/1‑

13. This witness was cross‑examined in great detail on procedural matters and with regard to the duties of the Machine Operator and other officers in the Bank. Attempt was made to show that other officers also had to play some part and supervise the processing of cheques. Attempt was also made to show that supplementary sheets prepared by Machine Operator are checked by Officer Incharge of CD Department after the closing hours of the Bank. In spite of the fact that this witness was cross‑examined at great length, his credibility could not be shaken and it does not appear from the cross‑examination that he has spoken lies or he had any malice or motivation to falsely implicate the appellant. P.W.5 Syed Ahsan Hussain has deposed in the trial Court that he remained C.D. Incharge in the Stock Exchange Branch of U.B.L. from January, 1980 to May, 1982 and from January, 1983 to July, 1983. Both Accounts Nos. 2218 and 2448 were opened by appellant in the name of National Medical Store at Rehmani Commission Shop. Exhs.3/D and 3/D‑1 relating to the opening of the accounts mentioned above were filled in by appellant Maroon in his own handwriting which was identified by this witness.‑This witness further verified and attested signatures of Munaf Sultani and Qadir Sherwani on Exh.3/D in respect of Account No.2218 and Abdul Majeed, Muhammad Amin and Maroon Rehmani on Exh.3/D‑1 in respect of Account No.2448. This witness further deposed that Exh.3/D‑2 related to Account No.2261 and the form was filled in in the handwriting of appellant Maroon.. This witness P.W.5 Syed Ahsan Hussain further deposed before the trial Court that in the year 1983 appellant Maroon used both Accounts Nos. 2448 and 2218 and issued 17 cheques on these accounts for the amount of Rs.17,00,000, which came for clearing from Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. where they were deposited. All those cheques in normal course of his duties as Machine Operator were received by him and he made entries of the amounts in daily supplementary sheets Exh.3/1 to 3/I‑13 which were sent by him. Totals made in those sheets were incorrect and it was so done by appellant Maroon to hide fraud committed by him. Fraud was detected when advices sent to clearing house as per Exhs.6/A to 6/A‑14 did not tally with supplementary sheets. This witness further stated in the cross‑examination that appellant Maroon behaved in such a nice manner in the Branch that he enjoyed respect and confidence of every member of the Branch. He had so much confidence in appellant Maroon that appellant Haroon used to write advices in his own handwriting and get them signed by this witness. He gave details of advices which were in the handwriting of appellant Maroon and were signed by this witness as well as other officers jointly. This witness was cross‑examined at great length and attempt was made to show that he failed in his duty to supervise properly but there is nothing in the evidence of this witness to show that he has made a false statement. He admitted in cross‑examination that in the beginning he was suspected by the Bank to be in league with appellant Maroon and on that account he had been suspended and the charge against him was that he signed and sent clearing advices without proper check‑up and for negligence of duties. P.W.7 Jafar Ismail has deposed before the trial Court that at the relevant time he was working. as Cashier in Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. He knew appellant Maroon, who had Account No.1118 in that Branch in the name of Yousuf Medical and General Store. He produced 48 cheques which were drawn on Account No.1118 in the year 1984 as Exhs. 8/A to 8/A‑

47. P.W.8 is Javed Hassan, who deposed before the trial Court that in October, 1982 he was working as IInd Officer in Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. He identified signature of appellant Maroon as partner in Exh.3/F, which is opening form of Account No.1118 standing in the name of Yousuf Medical and General Store. P.W.9 is Muhammad Sirajuddin who deposed before the trial Court that he was working in Federal `B' Area/Karimabad Branch of U.B.L. This witness stated that Abdul Qudus and appellant Maroon opened Account No. 1118 on 26th October, 1982 at the said Branch. He identified signature of appellant Maroon on the account opening form Exh.3/F. He identified deposit slips Exhs.3/G to 3/G- 11 in respect of cheques deposited in Account No.1118 which were signed by him. Those cheques were drawn on the Stock Exchange Branch of U.B.L. through pay -in‑slip Exh.3/G‑13 and those cheques were cleared by Stock Exchange Branch. Amounts of those cheques were credited into Account Number 1118. He further stated that Exhs. 8/A‑17 to 8/A‑20, 8/A‑23 and 8/A‑26 to 8/A‑47 bore signatures of appellant Maroon as drawer. Cheques Exhs.8/A‑14 and 8/A‑15 bore signatures of appellant Maroon and co‑accused Qudus. He also identified signatures of Maroon on cheques Exhs. 8/A, 8/A‑10, 8/A‑12, 8/A‑15, 8/A‑20, 8/A‑23, 8/A‑29, 8/A‑31, 8/A‑38 to 8/A‑40; 8/A‑42 to 8/A‑

47. Evidence mentioned above clearly shows beyond doubt involvement of appellant Maroon in the crime as alleged against him. This evidence is further fortified by admissions of appellant himself. Appellant Maroon made extra- judicial confession orally before several officers of the Bank in which he admitted his guilt and explained modus operandi. Not only that but he admitted in writing as well which has been brought on the record as Exh.3/C. On this point P.W.1 Zaki Muhammad and P.W.2 Arif Rasheed have been examined, who have deposed before the trial Court that appellant Maroon in their presence admitted his guilt and gave it in writing. In Exh.3/C appellant has admitted to have committed fraud of Rs.97,00,000 and further claimed that nobody was involved' with him in the said fraud. It was further stated therein that he used to deposit cheques in Account No.2218 of his Branch and when those cheques Used to be presented in 'T.D. for clearing, he used to destroy them and further used to deposit the same amount in the supplementary and further used to enter the same amount received in the balance book on the same day less from the account by shortening the total. It is further admitted in Exh.3/C that appellant had other accounts in Muslim Commercial Bank, Al‑Karam Square Branch in the name of Rehmani Commission Shop and in U.B.L., Federal `B' Area Branch in the name of Yousuf Medical and General Store. Subsequently appellant took up the stand that Exh.3/C was his own writing but he had done the same under duress. He put such questions to both these witnesses mentioned above in cross‑examination in suggestive form but the suggestion is denied by the witnesses. This idea of duress had occurred to appellant very late for the reason that fraud was discovered on 18th February, 1985 and immediately thereafter appellant admitted his guilt in writing and question relating to duress were suggested to the witnesses on 5‑8 1986 when they were being cross‑examined. Appellant has not produced any material to show that in between the dates mentioned above he raised any hue and cry and complained to higher authorities that Exh.3/C was obtained from him under duress. During the investigation, judicial confession of appellant was recorded on 4‑3‑1985 before Additional City Magistrate. This judicial confession is on the record as Exh.14/A. In this confession appellant has given all relevant facts as to how this fraud was committed and what he did with the money. He has narrated in detail that in the year 1980 father of his friend Abdul Kareem had expired, who intended to pay the loan of his father. Abdul Karim demanded loan from appellant, who was unable to help for the reason that he had no money. Appellant then changed his mind and was determined to help his friend in need and so he issued a cheque of Rs.6,000 to his friend, who sent it for encashment through another Bank and when the cheque was received in the Bank of the appellant, he sent the advice to the concerned Branch in spite of the fact that in his account there was no such balance.. After sending the advice he tore away the cheque. This is how he committed first fraud and after that the way became open' for him to commit more frauds. Appellant further stated that he was himself a' poor man and was actuated with the intention of helping financially other poor and needy people. Thereafter appellant has narrated the whole story as to how he opened other fictitious accounts and operated through his friends Muhammad Munaf and Abdul Qadir who is son of sister of appellant. He gave details as to how he took money from the Bank and invested the same in other businesses set up by him and advanced loans to other persons to help them out. In the trial Court when the statement of appellant was being recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. appellant resiled from judicial confession Exh.14/A and took up the stand that he was beaten and threatened by Inspector Shahid Hussain, who had given him written statement in Urdu and asked him to make his statement before Magistrate. He was beaten up by the Police Officer and was threatened, hence he had no other alternative but to make the confession. Appellant proclaimed that judicial confession is neither true nor voluntary. In the trial Court when P.W.10 Syed Shahid Hussain, I.O. appeared for giving his evidence, in cross‑examination only two suggestive questions were put to him on the point of judicial confession. One was that I.O. gave inducement to appellant Haroon that if he made confession, he would be dealt with leniently Another question suggested was that confession was obtained from Haroon under threats, duress and coercion. I.O. denied both these suggestions and that was the end of the matter and no further questions were asked with regard to the beating administered by I.O. to appellant or written statement prepared by I.O. and given to appellant to make such statement before the Magistrate. Prosecution has examined P.W.13 Mr. Nazar Muhammad, Additional City Magistrate, who recorded judicial confession of appellant Haroon on 4‑3 1985. He deposed before the trial Court that he took all requisite precautions and administered warnings to ensure that confession, which was to be given by the appellant was voluntary and truthful. He checked and satisfied himself that there were no marks of violence on the person of appellant, who volunteered to give his confession. This Magistrate was subjected to very lengthy cross‑examination but there is nothing in the cross‑examination to suggest that the confession was not voluntary or the appellant was beaten up by I.O. or appellant read from written confession as is alleged by appellant in his 342, Cr.P.C. statement. The following paragraph from the cross‑examination of the Magistrate is reproduced verbatim as under:‑ "I had asked from the accused whether any threat, inducement or promise had been given to him for making the confession, but he stated that he had committed the offence and he was making the confession voluntarily without any pressure or promise. The accused had a beard. I do not know whether the accused has retracted the confession. I had not told the accused that if he made the confession, leniency will be shown and he will be awarded lesser punishment. It is not correct that the accused was very much afraid when he was brought for recording the confession. The accused did not tell me that he had been persuaded by the Bank in which he was employed to make the confession. It is not a fact that I was directed by the S.D.M. to record the confession. It is not a fact that the confession was not voluntary." While we are at this point of duress and threats at the time of judicial confession, we may as well refer to extra‑judicial confession of appellant Exh.3/C. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. in the trial Court, appellant stated that he did make such confession before the Magistrate but the true circumstances were that when he was first asked by the Manager in the Branch he had declined. This was about 10 p.m. Later in the night he was again asked in presence of P.W. Zaki Ahmed to make confession and he was threatened that otherwise police would be called and he would be arrested. He again refused. At about 7 a.m. in the presence of police, he was threatened that his wife and children would be arrested and in view of such threats he made confession. It is quite obvious that when in the trial Court Manager and P.W. Zaki Ahmed were examined no such questions were put to them. I.O. was also examined in the trial Court and no such question was put to him. In these circumstances, it can be said that whatever explanations were thought up by appellant at the time of recording of his 342, Cr.P.C. statement in the trial Court on the question of voluntariness and truthfulness of extra‑judicial confession as well as judicial confession were afterthought. So far the judicial confession is concerned, it has come on the record that it stands corroborated by recoveries made from persons of amounts lent to them by appellant and valuables purchased from such money. In the context of corroboration reference can be made to the evidence of P.W.3 Abdul Razzak, who is a businessman. Qudus and Sattar rented one shop in the building owned by wife of this witness. Shop was taken on tenancy in the name of Mst. Abida wife of appellant Haroon and such agreement of tenancy was executed, copy of which is produced on the record as Exh.4/A. In the said shop Medical Store was set up in the name of Yousuf Medical Store. P.W.12 Hap Ahmed deposed before the trial Court that appellant Haroon and Munaf invested Rs.7,50,000 with him for the purchase of iron and steel. Consignment was expected in ships which were delayed. This witness during the investigation handed over money to I.O. Shahid Hussain. Reference can also be made to the evidence of P.W.10 Syed Shahid Hussain I.O. who has given a long list of recoveries made by him during the course of the investigation. Some of such recoveries are mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, where evidence of I.O. was highlighted. Learned counsel for the appellant has criticised judicial confession of appellant on the ground that appellant Haroon was arrested on 18‑2‑1985 and judicial confession was recorded on 4‑3‑1985 which was after a delay of about 13 days, as such it is not to be considered as voluntary. In support of proposition reliance is placed on some rulings which are mentioned hereafter. In the case of Bhimappa Saibanna Taiwar and others v. Emperor A I R (32) 1945 Bom. 484, it was held that since there was no explanation as to why accused had to remain in the Magisterial custody for periods ranging from 21 days to 52 days and also why a letter from I.O. was considered necessary; the confessions made were not to be given credence as of voluntary character. It may be pointed out that the reported case was of dacoity. In the case of Rahzan and another v. The State P L D 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 24, it was held that compliance by Magistrate recording confession of all formalities of law is not necessarily conclusive of voluntary nature of confession because entire set up of prosecution case, surrounding circumstances and intrinsic value of confession are to be considered in assessing voluntariness and truth of confession. In the case of Hakim Gul v. State P L D 1964 (W.P.) Pesh. 1, it is held that a retracted confession by itself is not sufficient for conviction unless corroborated by independent evidence and circumstances already known to police, which" could be tutored to the accused cannot serve as corroboration. In the case of Tauqir Alam and 9 others v., The State 1985 M L D 604 it was held that recoveries made before the recording of confession cannot be used as corroboration of that confession. In the instant case appellant was involved in the case of fraud in a Bank where he was working as Machine Operator. Fraud was being committed over a long period of about 5 years since 1980. Fraud was spread over a very large number of transactions in which was involved record of the Bank including registers and ledgers. Immediately when the fraud was detected appellant confessed his guilt orally as well as in writing before the Manager and other officers of the Bank. He explained the modus operandi and was helpful and cooperative. In such circumstances investigation started making positive progress and recoveries were also being made. Particular question as to how judicial confession was recorded after 13 days was not put to I.O. as such, otherwise be would have explained. In any case in view of case‑law cited above particularly with regard to recoveries made before recording of judicial confession, we would say that for the purpose of corroboration in respect of retracted judicial confession those recoveries should be considered which were made after recording of judicial confession on 4‑3‑1985, Even otherwise, there is so much other evidence which is available on the record to prove the case of the prosecution. It appears from the statement of I.O. dated 4‑3‑19135 and afterwards he had made on different dates as many as 25 recoveries. The last recovery was made on 29th July, 1985 in which he secured an amount of Rs. two lacs and fifty‑five thousand on voluntary production by Mst. Halima Bai vide memo. Exh.11/A‑

59. In the same context, it was contended on behalf of appellant that even extra‑judicial confession is not reliable for the reason that it was made to officers who were persons in authority. So far the question is concerned with regard to pressure or promise, the same is denied by P.Ws. Zaki Ahmed, Arif Rasheed and Syed Shahid Hussain. In any case to consider voluntariness of extra‑judicial confession, all concomitant circumstances of the case are to be considered as stated above. Although no particular question was put to the appellant in his 342, Cr.P.C. statement but he has voluntarily stated that he did make confession before the Manager and then he explained the circumstances in which that statement was made by him. He alleged threats by police but the same were not put to I.O. when he was being examined. Even otherwise in the extra‑judicial confession in writing appellant has explained modus operandi and then subsequently everything he said turned out to be true and got proved by documents and other relevant material. It was contended on behalf of appellant Haroon that his conviction and sentence in six separate other cases under sections 420 and 477‑A, P.P.C. is illegal in view of prohibition contemplated under section 71, P.P.C., which provides that where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with punishment of more than one of such offences, unless it be so expressly provided. Contention is untenable for the reason that even definition of section 71, P.P.C. as stated above does provide for `unless it be so expressly provided'. Section 420, P.P.C. deals with offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and such offence can be complete in one transaction or it can be repeated again and again and each time it is committed, it would be afresh offence. Likewise, section 477‑A, P.P.C. relates to falsification of accounts. Section 233, Cr.P.C_ envisages that for every distinct offence a separate charge is to be framed and it is to be tried separately except in cases mentioned in sections 234, 235, 236 and 239, Cr.P.C. Section 234, Cr.P.C. provides that three offences of the same kind within a year may be charged together. Above‑mentioned cases filed against the appellant are offences of the same kind and are covered under section 234, Cr.P.C. that is why he had been charged separately in six different cases. In the instant case in all the six cases the sentences have been directed to run concurrently as such apparently no prejudice is caused to the appellant. Mr. Pingar, Advocate for the appellant has submitted that prejudice is caused to the appellant in respect of sentence of fine which is to follow sentence wise, if fine is not paid, after the substantive sentence is over. He further calculated sentences in default of payment of fine in all cases and stated that they come up to 7‑1/2 years which is in excess of substantive sentence of 7 years as provided in section 420, P.P.C. In the instant case, it is apparent that there were six different cases, in which sentences in default of payment of fine have been added up. Appellant was tried under special law for offences which are scheduled offences. Under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 as contemplated under section 6 thereof, special Court is empowered to pass a sentence of fine, amount of such fine shall be fixed by it having regard to the gravity of offence and is further required to be not less than twice the said amount. Very large amounts were involved in these cases and the fine imperatively had to be double of the amount. In the circumstances, sentence in default of the fine also has to be proportionate to the amount of fine. Mr. Pingar was unable to show us any provision of law under which requirement is specified that in all the cases sentences in lieu of payment of fine are to be added up to make a total which would be less than substantive sentence mentioned under that section. Proposition advocated by the learned counsel may apply in one case in which there is one charge and several transactions but not in several different cases. Mr. Pingar submitted that in the instant case for offence under section 420, P.P.C. one case should have been filed and one charge should have been framed because the offence was cheating and six separate cases should not have been filed. In support reliance is placed on the case of Banwarilal and others v. Union of India A I R 1963 SC 1620. In the reported case objection was taken that for offence under section 420, P.P.C. one single charge should not have been framed because different distinct offences were alleged as such requirement of section 233, Cr.P.C. should have been followed. It was held by Supreme Court of India that single charge under section 420, P.P.C. did not contravene section 233 as object of conspiracy was not to obtain diverse amounts but to obtain entire contract money from the Government. On the face of it, facts of the reported case are distinguishable and are not attracted to the facts of the instant case. On behalf of the appellant an argument was raised that the money had been drawn in due course by cheques which were honoured as such offence under section 420, P.P.C. is not made out unless forgery of cheques is proved. In support case of State v. Khan Muhammad 1986 P Cr. L J 2112 is cited. Facts of the reported case are different and are not on all fours with facts of the instant case. In the instant case charge stands proved by overwhelming evidence of incriminating nature. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that in the instant case offence was complete on 18‑2‑1985 and offence under section 420, P.P.C. was made as scheduled offence by Notification dated 28‑4‑1985 and on that premise it was submitted that amendment would not apply with retrospective effect in this case. On this ground, it cannot be said that there was jurisdictional defect or the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try that offence. Section 4 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 confers upon the Special Court jurisdiction to try scheduled offences and further empowers the Federal Government to include in the first schedule offences from time to time. Subsection (4) of this section further provides that whenever an offence is included in the first schedule, the case relating to that offence, wherever it was pending before the inclusion of such offence in the schedule, shall stand transferred to the Special Court having jurisdiction over such cases. In the instant case offence under section 420, P.P.C. was included in the first schedule by notification dated 28‑4‑1985 and first‑ charge‑sheet was framed by the Special Court on ‑10‑12‑1985 in which offence under section 420, P.P.C. has been mentioned. It was then contended that section 477‑A, Cr.P.C. is mentioned in the second schedule to the said Ordinance requiring that sentence shall not be less than 5 years and this has caused prejudice to the appellant because offence in his case was complete on 18‑2‑1985. We do not see how prejudice is caused to the appellant. Section 477‑A, Cr.P.C. is mentioned in the second schedule to the Ordinance No.IX/1984 which was promulgated on 23rd February, 1984. Ordinance mentioned above provides for speedy trial of certain offences committed in respect of Banks and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In both the schedules to this Ordinance section 477‑A, P.P.C. has been included specifically which relates to the falsification of accounts. Now since this offence is attributed to an employee of the Bank it is to be tried under the special law mentioned above by the special Court set up thereunder. This is mandatory requirement and there is no other alternative. Even otherwise section 477‑A, P.P.C. ordinarily is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both. We are, therefore, of considered view that absolutely no prejudice is caused to the appellant in his trial under the special law by the Court set up thereunder. For the facts and reasons mentioned above, we are of the considered view that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond doubt. Impugned judgment is based upon proper appraisal of evidence with convincing reasons for conclusions arrived at. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said judgment, as such it is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. ?/M‑700/K Appeal dismissed.