1983 P Cr (PLP)

3. The case was investigated by Inspector Muhammad Maqsood and Muhammad Zameer Khan of P. S. P. E. On completion of investigation, the appellant was challaned on 19‑7‑1974.

4. Under a letter dated 1‑8‑1974, the Court moved the Government of Pakistan for according sanction for prosecution of the appellant. Letter of the Court was acknowledged by the Ministry of Interior under their letter dated 9‑8‑1974. Requisite sanction was neither sanctioned nor refused within a statutory period and hence under an order passed on 29‑10‑1974, the learned trial Court took the sanction to have been accorded.

5. Substance of accusation Exh. 2 containing prosecution allegations was read over and explained to the appellant, who pleaded not guilty.

6. Prosecution examined complainant Abdul Ghafar Khan Exh. 3 and P. Ws. Irshad Ali Exh. 21, Manzoor Ahmed Exh. 22,, Ansar Ahmed Exh. 23, Fazal Ahmed Exh. 24, Abdul Bari Exh. 25, Bashir Ahmed Exh. 26, Muhammad Maqsood Exh. 28 and Muhammad Zameer Khan Exh. 31.

7. In his statement Exh. 32, the appellant admitted, that he was Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, Drigh Colony Branch, Karachi from June, 1967 to October, 1969. The appellant admitted his signatures on credit vouchers Exh. 4 and on Debit vouchers Exhs. 10 and

1. The appellant denied having misappropriated Rs. 700, Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 600 on 13‑6‑1968, 12‑7‑1968 and 4‑2‑1969 from Accounts Nos. 887, 235 and 295 respectively. He denied having falsified the account of the Bank and having forged certain entries in said accounts for the purpose of misappropriating said amounts. The appellant claimed that S. B. Account No. 887 of Fazal Ahmed was debited with Rs. 700 on 13‑6‑1968 with permission of the latter. Similarly, the appellant took plea that Current Account No. 235 was debited with Rs. 1,000 on 12‑7‑1968 with consent of Dr. Manzoor Ahmed, who was holder of said account. Similarly, the appellant added that Current Account No. 295 was debited on 4‑2‑1969 with an amount of Rs. 600 under permission of Muhammed Ahmed, who was operating said Account No.

295. The appellant admitted his signatures on debit voucher Exh. 14 and on credit voucher Exh.

15. The appellant explained, that he was given in writing to transfer to his own account Rs. 600 from Current A/C No. 295 by Messrs Umer Brothers. The appellant explained, that the instructions about transfer of Rs. 1,000 to his personal account from the Account No. 235 came to him verbally from Dr. Manzoor Ahmed, holder of. Account No.

235. The appellant admitted that posting of Rs. 700 in Ledger Sheet Exh. 6 was authenticated by him. He denied having authenticated the posting of credit voucher Exh. .4 in ledger sheet Exh.

9. The appellant admitted having authenticated posting about debit of Rs. 1,000 in lodger sheet of Account No. 235, copy Exh.

12. He also admitted having authenticated posting of credit entry of Rs. 1,000 in his personal account. He denied having authenticated posting of debit entry of Rs. 600 in ledger sheet copy Exh. 16 pertaining to Current Account No.

295. He admitted having authenticated posting of credit entry of Rs. 600 in the ledger sheet of his personal account copy Exh.

17. The appellant added that he was working single handed in the Drigh Colony Branch of N. B. P. at the relevant time. He added, that it was duty of the second officer to pass credit vouchers and debit vouchers but in the said branch, he had no second officer to do that job. The appellant added, that none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed against him.

8. The appellant did not wish to enter the witness box as his own witness and did not wish to lead evidence in defence except production of true copy of a deposition of the complainant recorded in Case No. 55/1974.

9. The learned trial Court taking into consideration, the evidence adduced before it, convicted the appellant as hereinbefore mentioned and consequently appellant has filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in memo. of appeal.

10. The learned Advocate for the appellant at the outset submitted, that be was not pressing the above appeal on merits, but only as far as sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned as Bank suffered no loss at all. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon case 1983 S C M R 36.

11. The learned Advocate for the State, on the other hand submitted, that he was supporting the impugned judgment on merits as well as in respect of the sentence awarded to the appellant, on the basis of cases P L D 1971SC541,PLD1975SC174andPLD1978SC10.

12. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned advocates before me and have gone through the record and proceedings of the learned trial Court as well as through the impugned judgment and cases cited by the learned Advocates before me.

13. I find that the prosecution by the statements of the prosecution witnesses examined before the learned trial Court has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and this fact was rightly conceded by the learned Advocate for the appellant. In view of this I find no merits in the above appeal as far as conviction of the appellant is concerned.

14. However, the only question which requires consideration is, whether appellant after the lapse of nearly 5 years be sent back to custody to serve out the remaining sentence awarded to him. In this connection the learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon case 1983 S C M R 36 and submitted that the ends of justice will be met, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already under?gone by him. However, the learned Advocate for the State on the other hand submitted, that in view of the cases P L D.1971 S C 541, P L D 1975 S C 174 and P L D 1978 S C 10 and submitted that merely because 5J years have elapsed in hearing of the above appeal, it is not necessary that the appellant should not be remanded back to custody.

15. I have gone through the cases cited by the learned Advocates before me and in my opinion the cases cited by the learned Advocate for the State, are based on different facts, whereas the case relied upon by the learned A Advocate for the appellant is directly on this point. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this, in my opinion, ends of justice will be fully met while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by him.

16. Accordingly in view of my above conclusions, while dismissing the above appeal, on merits, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant from a period of one year, to the period already under?gone by him and maintain the fine of Rs. 1,000 imposed on the appellant and in default of payment of said fine to suffer further R. 1. for 3 months. However, I grant two weeks time from today to the appellant to pay the fine imposed on him, failing which the learned trial Court is directed to issue non‑bailable warrants for the arrest of the appellant and remand him to judicial custody to serve out sentence, in lieu of fine.

17. The above appeal stands disposed off in the terms of the above judgment. Appeal disposed of.