1986 P L D 1052 (PLP)

Mr. Shamshad Alam Lari, the learned counsel for the appellant Mirza Rashiduddin has contended that the appellant is innocent and falsely implicated. His submission is that appellant's handwriting and signature were not proved on the credit vouchers. Mr. Anwar Mansoor Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel for the state has supported the conviction of the appellants. We have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel before us and have gone through the impugned judgment, the statements of the prosecution witnesses examined before the learned Presiding Officer. Prosecution case against the appellant‑rests on the evidence of P.W.2 Samiullah Ghutala, P.W.4 Muhammad Irfan, P.W.5 Syed Ahmed Ali, P.W.6 Muhammad Hanif, P.W.7 Muhammad Yousuf and P.W.10 Lal Muhammad as stated before in earlier part of this judgment. P.W.5 Syed Ahmed Ali in his deposition before the learned Presiding Officer stated that appellant Din Muhammad is the neighbour of his sister in North Nazimabad. Appellant had come to him in July, 1984 for introducing his account in I.I. Chundrigar Road Branch. He saw Exh. 3/A the account opening form and identified his signature thereon as introducer. After opening of the account he was contacted by Senior Vice‑President of U.B.L. who informed him that the fraud was committed in the account of Din Muhammad. He took the Police party to the house of appellant Din Muhammad from where appellant was arrested by Police. P.W.4 Muhammad Irfan has corroborated the statement of P.W.5 to the extent of opening of the account. He stated in his deposition that appellant Din Muhammad made an application for issuance of cheque book in respect of his C.D. Account No. 18851 and after verifying his signature the witness issued cheque book. The witness saw cheques Exh. 3/F, F‑1, F‑2 and F‑3 and stated that these cheques were issued from the cheque book. P.W.2 Samiullah has corroborated statement of P.W.5 Syed Ahmed Ali. This witness produced account opening form Exh. 3/A. The witness stated before the learned Presiding Officer that three T.Ts were credited in account of the appellant Din Muhammad who withdrew Rs. 6,70,000 by four cheques which he produced as Exhs. 3/F, 3/F‑1, 3/F‑2 and 3/F‑

3. P.W.6 Muhammad Hanif has corroborated the statements of P.Ws. 2, 4, 5, 7 and

10. He stated. that he knew appellant Din Muhammad as he is an account‑holder of their branch. He also stated that he obtained the second signature of appellant Din Muhammad on cheque Exh. 3/F. P.W.7 Muhammad Yusuf has corroborated ‑the statement of the P*Ws. He stated in his deposition that he paid amounts of cheques having Exhs. Nos. 3/F to 3/F‑3 after .taking his second signature on those cheques. P.W.10 Lal Muhammad has also corroborated the statement of the PWs. to the extent that appellant Din Muhammad opened the account in the concerned branch. A sum of rupees seventeen lacs was deposited in his account and he withdrew Rs. 6,70,000 from that account. The appellant produced D.W.1 Shafiq Ahmed. He stated ir, his deposition before the learned Presiding Officer that he came to Karachi on 18‑7‑1984 and appellant Din Muhammad with him to Mirpurkhas and remained with him upto 2nd August, 1984. Taking into consideration the evidence of the above‑named prosecution witnesses, in our opinion, prosecution has established the fact that the appellant is neighbour of sister of P.W.5 Syed Ahmed Ali who introduced him. The appellant opened a C.D. account. A sum of Rs. 17,00,000 was credited in his account. This amount was credited on account of bogus T.Ts. The appellant withdrew a sum of Rs. 6,70,000 by three cheques. The learned counsel for the State states that the. appellant misappropriated and cheated the Bank to the tune of Rs. We have carefully considered these submissions of the learned counsel and have gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is clear from the evidence on record that the appellant Din Muhammad had an account in. the Bank. A sum of rupees seventeen lacs was credited in his account from bogus T.Ts. He withdrew a sum‑ of Rs. 6,70,000 from the above‑mentioned account. Prosecution case against appellant Mirza Rashiduddin rests on the evidence of P.W.8 Muhammad Sadiq and P.W.9 Ozair Ahmed Siddiqui. P.W.3 Badrul Hasnain in his deposition before the learned Presiding Officer stated that Exhs. 3/C to 3/C‑2, 3/D to 3/D‑3 and 3/E to 3/E‑3 did not bear his genuine signatures. He stated that vouchers in case of telegraphic transfer are made after the intimation from Test Key Department but such intimation was to be received by appellant Mirza Rashiduddin. He also stated that signatures alleged to be of appellant Rashiduddin on these vouchers are similar to his signatures but he could not say that these are his signatures. P.W.8 Muhammad Sadiq has corroborated the statement of P.W.3. He stated in his deposition that appellant Rashiduddin was incharge of T:R. Section. The appellant and witness worked together for 4. or 5 years in this bank department' because of this he became familiar with his signatures. He also stated that Exh. 3/C‑3 a credit voucher was prepared on the basis of which a sum of rupees two lacs was alleged to have been l received by T . T . from Multan in Account No. 18851. He identified his signatures on the above‑named exhibit He stated that he had put ‑ his signatures after the voucher was sent to him duly signed by appellant Rashiduddin. He also identified Exh. 3/D, 3/E‑3 which are credit vouchers as they were already signed by appellant Rashiduddin. This witness also denied the suggestion in cross‑examination that none of these vouchers contain signatures of appellant Mirza Rashiduddin. P.W.9 Ozair Ahmad Siddiqui stated in his deposition that alleged T.Ts. (Exhs. 3/C‑3, 3/D‑3 and 3/E) were not received by the Test Key Cell. He produced the inward register as well as outward register. He stated that there is no mention of these T.Ts. in both the registers. Taking into consideration the evidence of the above‑mentione witnesses, in our opinion prosecution has established the fact that th alleged T.Ts were not received by the Test Key Cell The credi E vouchers were prepared in the department and bear the signatures o the appellant Mirxa Rashiduddin. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the signatures on 4hese vouchers were not proved. His submission is that appellant's signatures were taken by A . C . M. and the same were sent to handwriting expert. The report of the expert was 'not produced ‑as the same was against the State. We have carefully considered these submissions of the learned counsel and have gone through the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and

9. It is clear from the evidence on record that the alleged T.Ts. were not received by the Test Key Cell department. The credit vouchers were signed by appellant Rashiduddin as first Officer and the amount thereo C was credited in Account No. 18851 of Din Muhammad. In our opinion the offence committed by appellant Din Muhamma falls under section 420, P.P.C. and not under sections 471 and 403,D P.P.C. as held by the learned Presiding Officer. In view of this, we would alter the conviction of the appellant from one tinder section 471/403, P.P.C. to one under section 420, P.P.C. and reduce hi sentence from two years, R.I. to one year R.I. and would maintain the fine imposed on him and in case of default, he would suffer six months, R.I. We would direct that car, colour television and VCR be returned to his wife as the prosecution has not led any evidence that these items were purchased from the amounts withdrawn by him. In our opinion the offence committed by appellant Mirza Rashiduddir also does not fall under sections 471 and 403/109, P.P.C. but only under section 471, P.P.C. and we reduce his sentence fro twc years, R.1. to one year R.I'. but would maintain the fine imposed on him and ‑in case of default, to suffer further R.I. for six months. The above appeals are dismissed with the above modifications in respect of conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants. However, the appellants will be entitled to the benefit of section 382(B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. S.A Order accordingly.