2026 P Cr (PLP)

Asjad Javaid Ghural, J.

Through this common judgment, I intend to decide above captioned criminal appeals under Section 410 Cr.P.C. preferred by appellants Attique-ur-Rehman and Faisal Iqbal, whereby they have challenged the vires of judgment dated 23.12.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, (Offences in Banks-II), Lahore in case FIR No.110/2014, in respect of offence under Sections 409,467,468,471,477-A and 34 P.P.C read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, (PCA) registered at P.S. FIA, Faisalabad whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:- Appellant Attique ur Rehman Convicted under Sections 409,467,468, 471 P.P.C read with section 109 P.P.C and sentenced to Seven Years (R.1) under each count with a fine of Rs 9,45,208/- on each count and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently Appellant was also extended the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. He was, however, acquitted under sections 420, 477-A P.P.C and Section 5(2)(47 of PCA. Appellant Faisal Iqbal Convicted under Sections 420,467,468, 471 P.P.C read with section 109 P.P.C and sentenced to Seven Years (R.I.) under each count with a fine of Rs.9,45,208/-on each count and in default thereof to further undergo S.1. for six months. All the sentences were directed concurrently. Appellant was also extended the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. He was, however, acquitted under sections 409, 477-A P.P.C and Section 5(2)(47 of PCA. 2 Complainant MCB through its authorized attorney has preferred Criminal Appeal No.172082 of 2018 against acquittal of respondent No.2 (respondent), which shall also be decided through this common judgment.

3. Heard. First of all, we would take up Appeal No.136406/18 filed by appellant Attique ur Rehman. In the array of nine accused involving in embezzlement of Rs.2,10,35,199/- relating to different Government Departments, per prosecution his role was as under:- "He along with Sudhir Ahmad (since acquitted) received three cheques from Pakistan Railways by impersonating himself as Muhammad Qamar Inspector, FBR, which were deposited and encashed in the account of co-accused Shehzad Khan. He was further charged that he received four cheques from Anwar-ul-Haq (PW-18) and encashed in the bogus account of co-accused Shehzad Khan opened with MCB Dijkot Branch, Faisalabad."

4. As far as first allegation that he by impersonating him as Muhammad Qamar Inspector, FBR collected three cheques from the Divisional Accounts Office of Pakistan Railways, Muhammad Akram (PW-5)/Senior Auditor, while appearing in the dock in the court room deposed that appellant along with his co-accused Sudhir Ahmad visited his office, presented authority letter (Ex.P-164), which was in the name of Mubarik Ali and Sudhir Ahmad and collected three cheques from him. During cross-examination he deposed that "On producing the said authority letter, I demanded to show their departmental ID, upon which Muhammad Sudheer accused present before the court showed his departmental ID and told that the person along with him as Mubarak Ali Inspector Inland Revenue, due to which we relied..... When I delivered the cheques to the accused, I obtained the signatures as recipient on the Exh. P168 and the said signatures are of "M.Qamar" It is correct that I did not check the identity card of recipient at any stage.... It is correct that entrance of our workshop office, CCTV cameras are installed. I had not pro vided any CCTV footage during investigation to the I.O proving his presence in the office..... It is correct that it is our duty to hand over the cheque after checking and verification of the person." Genuineness of authority letter (Ex.P-164) issued by the Inland Revenue Officer, authorizing co-accused Muhammad Sudhir and one Mubarik Ali Qamar to collect the cheques is not disputed. This star witness during cross-examination not only admitted that it was his duty to verify the persons to whom the cheques were being handed over but also conceded that he fails to perform this obligation by not determining the authenticity of holders of authority letter. There is no material available on record that the appellant ever visited the office of this witness. Despite availability of CCTV footage no effort was made to bring it on record is another drawback for the prosecution. Even the alleged signature of the appellant on receipt for collection of cheques (Ex.P-168) was not sent to the Handwriting Expert to substantiate the charge. In the absence of any such material, merely on the basis of oral allegation conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained on this charge. Furthermore, co-accused Sudhir Ahmad, who was said to be companion of the appellant at the time of collection of cheques and statedly identified the appellant as Mubarik Ali Qamar has already been acquitted of the charge by the Trial Court by disbelieving prosecution evidence to his extent, against which neither the State nor the complainant has filed any appeal, as such same set of evidence cannot be believed to maintain the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Reliance is placed on cases titled "Shahbaz v. The State" (2016 SCMR 1763), "Tariq v. The State and others" (2017 SCMR 1672) and "Imtiaz alias Taj v. The State and others" (2018 SCMR 344). A ready reference may be made to the last one wherein it has been held as under:- "The law is settled that if the eye-witnesses have been disbelieved against some accused persons attributed effective roles then the same eye-witnesses cannot be believed against another accused person attributed a similar role unless such eye-witness receive independent corroboration qua the other accused person

5. Next allegation against the appellant was that he collected four cheques from Anwar ul Haq (PW-18) and got it encashed in the bogus account of co-accused Shehzad. The said witness while appearing in the dock in the court room deposed that he simply stated that he handed over disputed cheques to the appellant without mentioning the date and time of handing over said cheques to him. Further, during cross-examination he deposed that "It is not mentioned in black and white in any record of the office that I had handed over the above said four cheques to accused Attiqu-ur-Rehman......I had not got any receiving letter from accused Attiqu-ur-Rehman in that respect." This witness was the custodian of the disputed cheques and it was his duty to at least bring on record anything in black and white to whom the said cheques were being handed over. Mere oral allegation of the witness against a particular employee in the absence of any supporting material in the shape of receipt of cheques by the appellant, cannot be made basis to hold him guilty of the offence. Furthermore, there is also no material available on record that the appellant got deposited said cheques in the account of co-accused. Moreso, this witness while appearing in the witness box made dishonest improvements on material point from his previously recorded statement (Ex.DA4), which was duly confronted to him. It is well settled law that if a witness makes dishonest improvements in his/her statement, the same loses the significance in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed on cases reported as "Sardar Bibi and another v. Munir Ahmad and others (2017 SCMR 344), Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Azam (2011 SCMR 474) and Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772)" In view of above, we are unanimous in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant Attique ur Rehman beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, by extending him benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. His surety and bail bonds are discharged from the liability. Appeal stands allowed accordingly.

6. Now coming to Appeal No.155315-18 filed by appellant Faisal Iqbal against his conviction and sentence. Allegation set out by the prosecution against the said appellant was as under:- "He fraudulently presented cheques of different Government departments for encashment in the account of co-accused Shehzad Khan and from the account of said accused an amount of Rs.56,75,500/- was transferred in his account, which was also withdrawn by him."

7. We have minutely examined the entire evidence and are of considered view that sufficient incriminating material in the shape of documentary evidence is available on record that he presented two cheques (Ex.P-87 and Ex.P-90) which pertained to the Government institutions in the MCB and deposited the same in the account of co-accused Shehzad. The Investigating Officer (PW-23) collected statement of appellant's account, which established that not only an amount of Rs.56,75,000/- was transferred in his account from the account of co-accused Shehzad but he also withdraw said amount and some of the amount was further transferred in the accounts of co-accused Sajid Mehmood and Nasir Mehmood. Appellant has also failed to bring on record any justification for depositing the cheques of government institutions in the account of co-accused Shehzad and then receipt of huge amount in his account from the account of said co-accused.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant was asked how such transactions can be defended, he with some hesitation finally resorted to alternate prayer for reduction of sentence of the appellant to the imprisonment already undergone. This submission was not seriously opposed by the learned Law Officer as well as the learned counsel for the complainant.

9. As per report submitted by the Superintendent, District Prison, Faisalabad vide memo. No.JB/9707 dated 08.10.2024, the appellant has served out four years, seven months and nine days of his substantial sentence excluding remissions, if any and was finally released from the jail on bail on 12.11.2018. The continuous incarceration of the appellant for such a long period, has served the very purpose of prosecuting him and has met the ends of justice. We deem it appropriate to maintain conviction of the appellant with the modification of his sentence to the imprisonment already undergone. However, amount of fine and sentence in lieu thereof shall remain intact. Since appellant is on bail, he is directed to pay the fine within 30 days, otherwise, he shall be taken into custody for serving out sentence imposed in lieu of fine. Appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

10. Appeal No.172082 of 2018 is against acquittal of respondent No.2 filed by the MCB/complainant. Allegation against the said respondent was as under:- "He while serving in MCB got opened a fictitious account of co-accused. Shahzad Khan and illegally and fraudulently received 46 cheques of different Government Departments which could not have received in MCB and got transferred the amount of Rs.2,10,35,199/- in the said account after getting clearance from NIFT."

11. It is an admitted fact that alleged fictitious account of co-accused was not opened by the respondent while serving in the bank rather opened by one Muhmmad Taimoor (PW-4), however, the case of the prosecution was that the respondent referred him to (PW-4) for opening of account. We have anxiously gone through the account opening form of co-accused Muhammad Shehzad (Ex.P.2) and observed that relevant column in this regard was blank. Further, when the fraud came in light and the police reached at the given address of co-accused, it was found that he never resides at the said address. It is thus manifestly clear that proper inquiry was not made prior to opening of the account by (PW-4). It was the duty of (PW-4) to duly verify the antecedents of the co-accused before opening of the account and he cannot shrug off his responsibility by merely stating that the account holder was referred to him by his colleague (respondent), in particular, when the column met for the said purpose was left blank. This allegation of the prosecution being devoid of any documentary support has rightly been disbelieved by the trial Court.

12. So far as the allegation against the respondent that he received 46 cheques of different government departments and got transferred huge amount in the account of co-accused after getting clearance from NIFT is concerned, we have observed that at the time of processing of 44 cheques respondent was serving in the bank as Cashier. It is an admitted fact that all employees in the banks performed duties according to their job descriptions and there is a teller limit for every employee. Muhammad Yaseen, (PW-1)/complainant during cross-examination admitted that teller limit of respondent was Rs.2,50,000/-, whereas, all the above 44 cheques were beyond said limit. Complainant (PW-1) during cross-examination deposed that The high value transactions are monitored by the branch manager... It is duty of the Operation Manager to check, examine and match the particulars of cheques with the vouchers and then post the same." It is thus manifestly clear that it was the duty of the Bank Manager or Operation Manager to process most of the disputed cheques and due to any inability on their part to monitor such transaction, respondent who was a low paid employee cannot be made scapegoat. Muhammad Rizwan (PW-2), who used to clear NIFT during the period of scam, admitted during cross-examination "to check and examine the cheques prior to its further transmission or entry etc is his duty" Thus due to inefficiency or negligence of superior colleagues of the respondent, he cannot be held responsible. In view of above, the trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the respondent from the charge and no exception can be drawn therefrom. Resultantly, instant appeal being devoid of any force stands dismissed. MH/A-92/L Order accordingly.