P L D 1964 (W (PLP)

Dates of hearing: 5th, 6th, 7th and 27th May 1964. Muhammad Murad Khan Yusuf appellant has been convicted under sections 468 and 420, P. P. C. and sentenced to a term of two years' rigorous imprisonment under each count. He has also been convicted under section 409, P. P. C. and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 8,

000. In default of the payment of fine to a further term of rigorous imprison ment of one year. Out of the, amount of fine, if recovered, a sum of a Rs. 7,000 is to be paid to the Town Committee, Isakhel. The sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The facts of the case against the appellant are as follows: He was posted as Secretary‑cum‑Accountant to the Town Com mittee, Isakhel in the year 1961‑

62. He forged the letter Exh. PA which purported to have been sent by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Sargodha Division, Sargodha to the Chairman, Town Committee, Isakhel, requiring him to deposit an amount of Rs. 7,409 in the name of the said Officer as charges for the maintenance of the water supplies of the Town Com mittee for the year 1961‑

62. It is alleged that the appellant handed over this letter to Mureed Ahmad, Clerk of the Town Committee, (P. W. 4) on the 31st of January 1962 and asked him to enter the same in the receipt register. Mureed Ahmad (P. W. 4) consequently made an entry Exh. PV/1 in the receipt register Exh. P V and handed back the letter to the appellant. The appellant then made an endorsement Exh. PA/3 on this letter saying that the bill was in order and recommended payment of a sum of Rs. 7,000 only. The Town Committee passed a resolution on the 15th of February 1962 Exh. PZ that the amount of Rs. 7,000 be deposited in the name of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, in pursuance of the demand made by him. The appellant then prepared the contin gent bill Exh. P B. The Chairman, Muhammad Abdullah (P. W. 5) issued a cheque Exh. P U on the Sub. Treasury, Isakhel, entitling the appellant to receive the amount of Rs. 7,000 from the Treasury. The appellant received payment of the amount of this cheque from Muhammad Yaqub, Treasurer on the 15th of February 1962. He never sent this amount to the office of the Executive Engineer, Sargodha and embezzled it. It is further alleged that he prepared the letter Exh. P C dated the 17th of March 1962 and handed it over to Ahmad Nawaz (P. W. 3), a clerk of the Committee asking him to enter the same in the despatch register. Ahmad Nawaz (P. W. 3) made the entry and handed it back to the appellant but the letter was not despatched. It was only written in order to show that the amount had been sent to the Executive Engineer, Sargodha. In July 1962, the Chairman,, Town Committee, received letter Exh. PQQ from the Executive Engineer, demanding an amount of Rs. 6,260 as charges for the water supplies for the year 1961‑

62. The Chairman informed the said officer by his letter Exh. PRR that a sum of Rs. 7,000 had already been paid in February 1962. There were exchanges of letters Exhs. PSS, PTT, PUU and PVV and ultimately it was discovered that the appellant had not deposited the amount for the purposes for which it had been withdrawn by him. The Chairman consequently wrote the letter Exh. PCC to the Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali, on the 13th of October 1962. The Chairman sent his letter Exh. PDD to the Isakhel Police on the basis of which the first information report Exh. PDD/1 was registered, as a result of which the appellant was challaned and convicted as mentioned above.

3. The prosecution examined the following witnesses in order to prove the case against the appellant Jalil Ahmad, Handwriting Identification Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, Peshawar. He stated that the disputed writings Exh. PA/3, PA/4, PB/1, PB/2, PB/3, PC/I, PD/1 except the overwriting word in column II and Exh. PC/1 were in the handwriting of the person who had written the specimen writings Exhs. PF, PG, PH and PJ and Exhs. PK/1 to PK/7 and Exhs. PD/2 to PD/30. He has given in his evidence detailed reasons for his conclusions. Muhammad Yaqub (P. W. 2), Treasurer, Isakhel Treasury, has been working there since 1949. He stated that the appellant had been receiving payment from the Treasury in his capacity as Secretary of the Town Committee, Isakhel. That he could identify his signatures because he had been writing in his presence. That the cheque Exh. PU was presented by the appellant on the 15th of February 1962 and that the endorsement Exh. P. 8/2 on the cheque was made by the appellant in his presence which was initialled by him, and that the amount of Rs. 7,000 was paid to the appellant who signed Exh. C/ I in the register Exhs. PC at page 319 serial No. 246 that the signatures Exh. P. 8/1 on the cheque Exh. PU were those of the appellant, and that the signatures at P. 8/4, PB/1, PB/2, PB/3, PC/1 and PD/1 were also those of the appellant. Ahmad Nawaz (P. W. 3) who was a clerk in the Municipal Committee, Isakhel, stated that the appellant had given him Exh. PC which he had entered in the despatch register and gave its No. 146/TCI at PC/2 in his own handwriting and then delivered it back to the appellant for being sent by post. He also identified the signatures of the appellant Exh. PC/1 on Exh. PC. Mureed Ahmad (P. W. 4) deposed as to the letter Exh. PA being given to him for entry in the receipt register which he made at Exh. PV/1 in the register Exh. PV. He by reason of being acquainted with the handwritings of the appellant identified his writings on Exhs. PA/3, PA/4, PB/1, PB/2, PC/1, PD/1, Exhs. PD/2 to PD/30, Exhs. P.8/1, P.8/2 and PE/1. Muhammad Abdullah (P. W. 5) is the Chairman of the Town Committee, Isakhel and he has mentioned all the facts as are set out in the second paragraph of this judgment. He handed over all the relevant papers to the police during the investigation vide memo. Exh. PY. Shah Amir Khan, Tehsildar, Isakhel identified the signatures of the appellant at Exh. P. 8/1 and P. 8/2. Shabir Ali Shah, Executive Engineer, Sargodha denied that the letter Exh. PA was sent from the Public Health Engineering Division, Sargodha, or that it bore his signatures. He stated that there was no occasion for that office to issue the letter to the Town Committee, Isakhel because his division was not responsible for the maintenance of the water supplies of the Town Committee, Isakhel, during those days. That it used to be maintained by the Public Health Division, Lyallpur. He brought the despatch register with him to show that the letter Exh. PA was not entered in the despatch register and that No. 455/PB dated the 23rd of January 1962 was fictitious. That in the register the first serial No on that date was

748. Sh. Noor Muhammad, Deputy Commissioner (P. W. 10) stated that he had ordered an enquiry on receipt of the letter from the Chair man, Town Committee, Exh. PCC and he also proved that Exh. PK was the sanction which was issued by him for the prosecution of the appellant. A supplementary statement of Jaleel Ahmad, Handwriting Expert was also recorded who stated that the signatures on Exh. PE/1 on the register Exh. PE were in the handwriting of the person who had signed Exh. PHH/1 at Exh. POO/1. Muhammad Hassan Khan, S. D. O. Sanitary Sub- Division, Sargodha, stated that the Public Health Division, Lyallpur was responsible through the Sanitary, Sub‑Division Sargodha for the maintenance of the water supply, to the Town Committee, Isakhel. That on the 30th of July 1962 letter No. 4879 was issued by the Executive Engineer, Sanitary Division, Lyallpur, to the Chairman, Town Committee for deposit of a sum of Rs. 6,260 as maintenance charges of the water supply for the year 1961‑

62. That Exh. PRR is the reply received from the Chairman, Town Committee, Isakhel. Thereafter the Executive Engineer sent another letter on the 27th of September 1962 to the Chairman asking him to transfer the amount alleged to have been deposited by the Committee in the name of the Public Health Engineering Division, Sargodha, to the Sanitary Division, Lyallpur by means of letter Exh. PSS, a copy of which was sent to the Executive Engineer, Sargodha he replied that the amount had not been deposited by means of letter Exh. PTT in Sargodha, Sub‑Division. A copy of this letter Exh. PTT was sent to the Town Committee, Isakhel, who sent the letter Exh. PUU to the Executive Engineer, Sargodha with a copy to the Sanitary Sub -Division, Lyallpur. Exh. PVV was another letter which was sent by the Sanitary Division, Lyallpur to the Chairman, Town Committee, Isakhel, that the amount had not been deposited so far by the Town Committee. Muhammad Latif Shah, Sub-Inspector Police, conducted the investigation of the case. He stated that from the report of the Fingerprint Expert it transpired that the name of the appellant was not Muhammad Murad but Muhammad Yusuf, son of Muhammad Din and that he was reported to be a previous convict and his thumb -impression Exh. PCCC tallied with those of Muhammad Yusuf, son of Muhammad Din a previous convict. The rest of the prosecution witnesses are of a formal character.

4. The appellant, when examined, admitted that he had been working as the Secretary‑cum‑Accountant at Town Committee, Isakhel, until the year 1949 and that thereafter he worked only as Secretary till 1962. When questioned if his name was Muhammad Murad Khan while in fact his real name was Muhammad Yusuf he stated that his name was Muhammad Murad Khan Yusuf. He admitted that he handed over the letter Exh. PA to Mureed Ahmad to enter in the receipt register and that the letter was handed over to him by Abdullah, Chairman, Town Committee who had endorsed it and lie had told him that he had received that letter which was to be placed before the Committee. He admitted that he made the endorse ment Exh. PC/3 and initialled this letter at Exh. PA/4. He also admitted that the resolution Exh. PZ was passed by the Town Committee on the 15th of February 1963 in pursuance of letter Exh. PA. He also admitted to have prepared the contingent bill Exh. PB and to have signed it at Exh. PB/1, PB/2 and PB/3. He, however, denied his signatures on the cheque Exh. PU at Exh. F. 8/1 and also de4ied that he made the endorsement on the cheque Exh. P. 8/2. He denied to have presented the cheque at the Treasury and received payment of the amount from Muhammad Yaqub, Treasurer. He also denied that he had signed at Exh. PE/1 in the Treasury register Exh. PE. He denied to have asked Ahmad Nawaz to enter the letter Exh. PC in the despatch register. He also denied his signatures at Exh. PC/1 on the letter Exh. PC. He denied to have deposited the amount of Rs. 7,000 at Sargodha or at Lyallpur. He admitted his signatures at Exh. PF, PG, PB, PJ, PK/1 to PK/7, Exh. PD/2 to PD/30 and PHH to POO/1. He denied that he had forged the letter Exh. PA. When questioned as to why this case was instituted against him he stated that some of the members of the Town Committee, Isakhel were corrupt and wanted to have things their own way to which he would not agree. The Chairman was colluding with them. His relations with such, members and the Chairman became strained on account of those differences and he was made to proceed on leave. Those members and the Chairman had joined hands in falsely involving him in this case. On the 7th of December 1963 when his statement was recorded he asked for time to produce defence evidence but on the 11th of December 1963 he stated that he would not like to produce any evidence in defence.

5. On going through the entire evidence in this case there is not a shadow of doubt that the appellant prepared the letter Exh. PA and he presented it to the Chairman and ultimately on the basis of that forged letter the Town Committee, Isakhel passed a resolution sanctioning the amount of Rs. 7,

000. The appellant thereby prepared the cheque Exh. PU and presented it at the Treasury and received the amount of Rs. 7,000 which he did not deposit either in Sargodha Division or in Lyallpur Division. The witnesses who have been examined in this case bore no enmity with the appellant. The whole chain of circum stances as established in this case leave no shadow of doubt as regards the criminality of the appellant. The letter Exh. PA is proved to be a forged document. The signatures of the appellant on the cheque at Exh. P. 8/1 in his capacity as Secretary of the Town Committee have been proved by the evidence of the handwriting expert as well as by the evidence of persons who had seen him writing for a number of years. Muhammad Yaqub, Treasurer, Town Committee, Isakhel, stated that the endorsement on the cheque at Exh. P. 8/2 was made by the appellant in his presence and that the amount of Rs. 7,000 was paid to the appellant by him after he had signed the entry in the Treasury register Exh. PE at PE/1, in token of having received the amount of Rs. 7,

000. There is no reason whatsoever, to doubt the veracity of this witness or as a matter of fact the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. From the evidence of Jaleel Ahmad, Handwriting Expert, it is proved that the signatures of the appellant at Exh. PE/1 in the register Exh. PE were of the person who had written Exh. PHH/1 to Exh. POO/1. The appellant admitted that these documents bore his signatures. Thus the case against the appellant stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant very vehemently argued that the appellant was appointed as Secretary to the Municipal Committee, Isakhel by the Commissioner, Dera Ismail Khan, in the year 1957 and consequently the Commissioner would be the Controlling Authority in his case, and he only was competent to sanction the prosecution of the appellant. That the sanction granted by the Collector was invalid. The learned counsel placed reliance on Faizullah Khan v. Government of West Pakistan (P L D 1962 Lah. 840.) in which it was held that the Commissioner was the Controlling Authority in the case of the petitioner. If this authority was applicable and the sanction as granted by the Collector, would undoubtedly be invalid. However, on going through the relevant notifications and the Basic Democracies Order, I am clearly of the view that the controlling authority in the case of the appellant from the day the Municipal Committee of Isakhel was converted into a Town Committee was, the Collector Mianwali, and consequently the sanction granted for the prosecution of the appellant is perfectly valid. The authority cited by the learned counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case. At the time of the arguments when the learned counsel raised this contention he was unable to tell me as to when was the Municipal Committee, Isakhel changed into a Town Committee. Consequently I recorded the statement of Mr. Masud‑ul‑Hassan, Inspector, Local Bodies, West Pakistan, Lahore; who stated that by means of Gazette Notification dated the 19th of November 1959 a copy of which was placed on record as C. W 1/A, the Municipal Committee of Isakhel was declared to be a Town Committee. He further stated that the Controlling Authority as regards the Town Committees is the Collector as is directed by section 3, sub‑clause (10) para. 3 of the Basic Democracies Order. Clause (2) of Article 8, empowers the Commissioner to divide the urban and rural areas of a Thana or Tehsil, as the case may be, within his jurisdiction, separately, into a number of areas, and declare, by notification in the official Gazette each such area to be a Town or Union. In exercise of these powers the Commissioner, Dera Ismail Khan, declared the area of Isakhel, Municipal Committee to be a Town Committee and as soon as by means of this notification the Municipality was converted into a Town Committee by virtue of section 3, clause (10), paragraph 3, the Collector will be the Controlling Authority thus from 19th of November 1959 when the notification was issued the Municipal Committee, Isakhel, became a Town Committee and the controlling authority in place of the Commis sioner became the Collector, Mianwali. By virtue of section 5 of the Basic Democracies Order a local council established under this Order shall be the successor of such local body or bodies established under any of the repealed enactments as the Controlling Authority may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify, and the extent to which or the purpose or purposes for which a council shall be such successor may also be specified in such notification. The learned counsel for the appellant has also invited my attention to the West Pakistan Local Council and Municipal Committees, Service Rules, 1963 and also to the Basic Democracies and Local Council Notification of the 1st of April 1964 by which the Service Rules of 1963 came into force from the 6th of April 1964 but these rules do not in any way govern the grant of sanction for the prosecution of the Secretary of a Town Committee as the appellant was at the time when sanction for his prosecution was accorded by the Collector who is the Controlling Authority. The objection as regards the validity of the sanction was not raised during the trial and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. In view of what has been stated above, I would dismiss this appeal. The appellant who is on bail shall be arrested to undergo the remaining term of imprisonment. S. Q. Appeal dismissed.