P L D 1985 Karachi 680 (PLP)

MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, J.-In this appeal the appellant M. Habibullah has called in question the judgment, dated 2-5-1985 of Special Court of Sind (Banks), Karachi, whereby he was convicted under section 408, P. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for 2 years' and fine of Rs. 1,20,000 or in default R. 1. for six months. The case against the appellant was registered on the basis of written complaint dated 25-10-1979 of the Manager, United Bank Limited (popularly known as U. B. L.) Drigh Colony Branch, Karachi. It was disclosed in the complaint that while working as Grade III Officer in the Drigh Road Township Branch of the U. B. L. in 1979 the appellant made certain forgeries in the Bank's record and defrauded the Bank by misappropriating a total amount of Rs. 59,927/3$, some of which he had received in smaller sums from various account holders for depositing in their accounts and some he had un-authorisedly withdrawn from the accounts of account holders. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses to prove the charges against the appellant. It appears from the statement of Mansoor Ahmed (P. W. 1) Manager of U. B. L., Drigh Colony, Branch that the appellant was in charge of Savings Account Department of the Bank in 1979 when he received two amounts of Rs. 18,000 and Rs. 10,C00 respectively from account holders Muhammad Aijaz and Mst. Jasima Khatoon and an amount of Rs. 2,951/20 from Muhammad Shafi for Gas Company for depositing the same in their accounts but be did not deposit the said amounts in their accounts. He further states that the appellant had made unauthorized debit entries of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 16,256 in the accounts of Mst. Rashida Begum and Abdul Ghafoor Hashmi. He is further supported by Nazir Ahmed (P. W. 2), Mst. Jasima Khatoon (P W. 6) and Muhammad Aijaz (P. W. 7). As disclosed in the accused's statement, he admitted halving received the aforesaid amounts which due to rush of work he had handed to Cashier Qasim Raza who had somehow failed to make necessary entries in the account books. According to the accused he has already paid back the said amount. As for the unauthorised debit entries in respect of two sums, the accused's explanation was that they were result of the mistake of the computer's posting. However as mentioned in question No. 4 put to the accused in course of his examination and the answer given by him, he had repaid the said amount also. In view of the evidence available on record, even the learned counsel) for the appellant did not press the appeal on merit. Accordingly we are of A the view that the finding of the learned Judge of the Special Court (Banks) as to guilt of the accused are unexceptionable. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, pleaded for reduction in sentence. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on unreported D. B. decision of this Court Muhammad Fahim Khan v. The State (Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1985), decided on 22-7-1985. In this case the appellant was held to have miss-appropriated a total amount of Rs. 89,

000. He had however, repaid the same amount. Keeping this factor in view and also the additional ground of protraction of the appellant's trial for about three years, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the one he had already undergone (i. e. about 2 months). We were also referred to the Supreme Court authority reported as Saeed Zakarfa v. The State and another (1972 S C M R 118). In the said reported case an amount of Rs. 16,600 was misappropriated by the appellant who however showed willingness to repay the misappropriated amount as well as any other sum he was required to pay. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of 12 months imprisonment awarded to the appellant under section 409, P. P. C. to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The appellant was also directed to pay fine of Rs. 17,000 out of which the misappropriated amount was ordered to be paid to the complainant department and the remaining amount of Rs. 400 was required to be paid as fine to the State. It seems after the appellant returned the misappropriated amount, the offence attributed? to him was considered to be of technical nature and hence the learned Supreme Court took lenient -view in awarding the sentence. In the instant case the appellant had not only returned the mis-appropriated amount but also has suffered a the agony of protracted trial for about six years. B furthermore he has lost his job in the bank. In fact for the accused's faction of society, loss of job, or in other words freezing up of the source of livelihood, is a great blow of life which serves as punishment not only for the accused himself but also for his family although the latter are not to blame for the accused's acts of omission and commission. Furthermore out of two years' imprisonment awarded to the accused, he has already undergone three months' imprisonment. Above all this the appellant's position in society has received a serious jolt on account of his conviction and his consequent ignominious ouster from bank service. Keeping the above factors in view, we by short order dated 13-8-1985 reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused to the one he had already undergone, leaving the sentence of fine and the imprisonment to be suffered in default of payment thereof undisturbed. Subject to this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.