1984 P Cr (PLP)

Under their order dated 24th July, 1976 Government of Pakistan accorded sanction for the prosecution of the appellants. Charge Exh. 3 containing prosecution allegations was read over and explained to the appellants who pleaded not guilty. Prosecutrix examined P.Ws. Abrar Shah Exh.4, Inayatullah Exh.

6. Abdul Salam Baluch Exh.8 and Mushtaq Ahmed Exh.

12. Prosecution was closed under statement Exh.

18. In his statement Exh.19, appellant Mir Dost admitted that from February, 1975 to June, 1975 he was National Savings Officer (No. S.0) Tando Adam Centre, that Account No. KD-4 in name of minor Jawed Akhtar was opened at instance of P.W. Inayatullah on 12th February, 1975 in National Savings Centre, Tando Adam, that Rs. 960 and Rs. 40 were deposited in said account on said date and that P.W. Inayatullah was given pass book (Exh. 6 of Case No. 51/1976) and withdrawal slips (Exh. 7 of Case No. 51/1976) bearing Nos. 029901 to 029810--Mir Dost also admitted that Rs. 150 were withdrawn on 26th April, 1975 under slip Exh.10 and Rs.900 were withdrawn on 22nd June, 1975 under slip Exh. 11 and that the same were containing his signatures as passing officer. Mir Dost denied having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the amounts withdrawn under slips Exhs. 10 and

11. He denied having forged the slips, for the purpose of committing criminal breach of trust. He added that it was job of the U.D.C. to issue withdrawal slips and hence he could not may if slips Exhs. 10 and 11 were from the booklet, which was not issued to holder of Account No. KD-4, Mir Dost did not wish to enter the witness-box and he did not lead evidence in his own defence. In his statement Exh. 20, appellant Luqmanul Haq admitted that during the period February, 1975 to June, 1975, he was U.D.C. at National Savings Centre, Tando Adam and was a public servant. He showed his ignorance about opening of Account No. KD-4 on 12th February, 1975, by saying that it was not his duty to maintain savings accounts. He denied being scriber of Slips Exhs. 10 and

11. He also denied having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the amount withdrawn under slips Exhs. 10 and

11. He denied having forged the slips or having forged the ledger card register in respect of Account No. KD-4. He stated that the ledger card register was not maintained and that it was not his duty to maintain accounts. Appellant Luqmanul Haq did not wish to enter the witness-box as his own witness, but he examined in his defence D.Ws. Hidayatullah Exh. 22, Bashir Exh. 23 and Ghulam Qadir Exh.

25. He gave up remaining D.Ws. under statement Exh.

24. Learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it, convicted and sentenced the appellants above named as herein before mentioned and consequently appellants have filed the above two appeals, on the grounds mentioned in their respective memo of appeals. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment, I propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment. The learned Advocate for appellants in support of the above appeal submitted, that appellant Mir Dost passed Exh. 10/11 for payment in normal cause of his duties and in the absence of any other evidence to show, that signatures of the account holder on Exh. 10/11 was in hand writing of appellant Mir Dost and in the absence of evidence on record, that this appellant in fact withdrew the amounts in question and mis appropriated the same, conviction of the appellant was not at all legally justified, as appellant had neither abused his official position by any illegal means nor obtained for himself any pecuniary advantage. In view of this appellants statement under section 342, Cr. P.C. ought to have been accepted and/or said statement has at least given reasonable explanation, which was created reasonable doubt in the prosecution case against the appellant Mir Dost, which out to have been given to him. The learned Advocate appearing for appellant Muhammad Luqmanul Haq on the other hand submitted, that there is no evidence on record to establish, that appellant Luqmanul Haq forged withdrawal slips Exh. 10/11, as no specimen signatures of the appellant were obtained by learned trail Court and/or sent to Handwriting Expert to prove this fact nor any P.Ws. in his statement before the learned trial Court has even alleged such fact, that accounts holders signatures on Exh. 10/11 are in the handwriting of appellant Luqmanul Haq. The learned counsel further submitted, that prosecution has led no evidence to prove that payment in respect of Exh. 10/11 were in fact received by either appellants and as such question of said amounts being misappropriated by them does not arise at all. Learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submitted that he was fully supporting the impugned judgment on the basis of statements of P.Ws. who have fully supported the prosecution case in toto. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before and have gone through the R 8 P of the learned trial Court as well as the impugned judgment. It is admitted position, that both the appellants in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied, that they had forged signatures of account holders on Exh. 10 and Exh.

11. Even during investigation, there was similar denial, but in spite of this neither 1.0. nor prosecution thought fit to obtain specimen signatures of appellants and send them to Handwriting Expert for comparison with disputed signatures on Exhs. 10 and 11, which was necessary to prove alleged forgeries. In view of this prosecution has relied upon the statement of P.W.3 Abdul Salam, that all writings on Exhs. 10 and 11 are in the handwriting of appellant Luqmanul Haq. This statement of P.W.3 has been belied by D.W. Ghulam Kadir, who admitted certain writings etc. related to appellant Luqmanul Haq to be his and as such no reliance at all can be placed on the statement of P.W.3 for purposes of alleged forgeries committed by appellants. In addition to this, I find p.W.2 Inayatullah the account-holder was not shown is alleged signatures on Exhs. 10 and 11 and no question was put to him, if said signatures were not his, even before the learned trial Court. Not a single P.W. has said in their statements, that proceeds of Exhs. 10 and 11 were in fact received by either appellants. I have carefully gone through the statements of P.W.3 Abdul Salam and P.W.4 Mushtaq Ahmad, their statement do not inspire confidence at all. P.W.3 Abdul Salam is involved in few cases like this one. D.W. Ghulam Kadir is not sure, when he paid proceeds of Exhs. 10 and

11. In the face of such evidence only brought on record and in the absence of Hanawriting Expert evidence to support alleged forgeries by appellants, no reliance can be placed on the statement of P.W.3 Abdul Salam, in respect of the alleged writings etc. of appellants, specially as appellant Luqmanul Haq has alleged grudge against them, P.W.3 Abdul Salam. In my opinion, prosecution has failed to establish its case against both the appellants, beyond reasonable doubt, as even specimen signatures of P.W.2 Inayatullah were not sent to Handwriting Expert, for comparison with his alleged disputed signatures on Exhs. 10 and

11. Therefore, I allow the above appeals and set aside conviction of the appellants and sentences awarded to them by impugned judgment and acquit them by giving benefit of doubt and discharge the bail bonds executed by the appellants in' their respective appeals S. G. D. Appeal allowed.