1986 P Cr (PLP)

Case No. 586 of 1984, decided on 22nd May, 1985. ‑‑‑S. 467/468‑‑Scheduled offence‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑Insurance claims in bogus names‑‑Cheques issued by Insurance Corporation of Pakistan‑ Accounts in bogus names opened in Bank‑‑Amount withdrawn from Bank by accused‑‑Prima facie, scheduled offences under S.467/468, held, had been committed and the Court had jurisdiction to try case.‑ [Jurisdiction]. Raja Muhammad Yaqoob, Special Prosecutor assisted by M. Aslam Shahid for the State. Shakir Rizvi for Respondents. Arguments heard. The facts of the prosecution case as given in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. are that the accused persons filed ten claims in the State Life Insurance Corporation relating to 10 bogus persons, showing them as having died. These claims purported to have been filed by the heirs of those persons, who were again bogus. The claims were passed and ten cheques were issued in the names of bogus persons. On the receipt of these cheques, the accused opened accounts in various banks in the names of the said bogus claimants/ beneficiaries and deposited the said cheques in the said account. After the money of the said cheques had been received from the State Life Insurance Corporation, the accused withdrew the same. It, therefore, appears that though some offence /offences was/were also committed in the State Life Insurance Corporation, offences had also been committed in the bank or in respect of business thereof when the accounts had been opened in the ‑bogus names by the accused by preparing in their own hands the account opening forms with the intention to be believed that the same had been written and filed by the ten claimants. It is proved by the report of the Handwriting Expert that signatures on the account opening form as well as the cheques by which sums were withdrawn from the banks are those of the accused. Prima facie, therefore, offence under section 468, P.P.C. is shown to have been committed and offence under section 467, P.P.C. is shown to have been committed when the cheques were forged. I do not, therefore, think that the allegations levelled in the challan of this case do not relate to scheduled offences. I, therefore, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that this case is not triable by this Court. The proceedings should, therefore, start in this case. In this case some evidence has already been recorded. Let the remaining evidence be summoned for the next day of hearing. The Special Prosecutor shall also submit a list of P.Ws. whom he wants to examine on the next date of hearing. To come up on 21‑12‑1985. S.A Petition accepted