' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Appellant Dr. Azhar Ata Malik was tried by Judge Accountability Court in (AC. Reference No, 28 of 2001 for) fraudulently, dishonestly and through forgery 'obtaining loan from the United Bank Limited for purchase of 40 Daewoo Racer Taxis in favour of 20 different fictitious persons by opening their accounts. Vide judgment dated 19-6-2003, he was convicted under sections 9 and 10 of the NAB Ordinance read with Clauses (7) and (8) of the schedule and sentenced to ten years R.I. And fine of Rs,12.5 millions (Rs .125 lacs). He was not given the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C as according to learned trial Court "he has committed a heinous offence and indulged in reprehensible activities".
2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that the appellant by misusing the Identity Cards of near relatives, personal employees and in some cases strangers prepared forged documents and 20 Accounts were opened to secure loan for purchasing 40-Vehicles. The appellant issued cheque No,348360 amounting to Rs,11,00,000 from the account (Account No,2406) of Pakistan Medical Cooperative Housing Society (PMCHS) maintained at the United Bank Branch in front of the Services Hospital. The payment of the afore-referred cheque was received by Ahmad Sajid (P.W.9) who was the then Chief Accountant of the afore-referred Housing Society & maternal uncle of Dr. Azher Ata Malik appellant on 15-7-1993. An application signed by Ahmad Sajid P.W.9 was given to the Bank-for issuance of Bank Draft for the payment of equity share for those 40 vehicles, thereafter pay orders were issued by the Bank. The accounts were opened by the then Manager Aftab Saeed Malik (P.W.1). All those 20 persons never appeared before him. The indemnity bond which was a requirement for loan under the Defunct Prime Minister's Yellow Cab Scheme were signed without any witness and were attested by Ahmad Sajid P.W.9. Even the rubber stamps of Deputy Secretary Ministry of Communication on the afore-referred vehicles was issued on initial payment of premium made by the appellant. The Reference was filed initially against the appellant, Malik. Aftab Saeed and Major (Retd.) Javed Anwar. However, the prosecution with permission of the Court withdrew the case against to the extent of Malik Aftab Saeed and Major
(Retd) Javed Anwar.
3. During the trial the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Following is the breakup of the evidence led by the prosecution.
NAME SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
1. Malik Aftab Saeed, (Retd.) Manager UBL opposite Services Hospital Branch Lahore.He stated that appellant Dr. Azher Atta Malik had four accounts in his Bank that on 15-7-93 appellant along with Manager Javed Anwar, Ahmad Sajid P.W.9 and Tariq Masood came to him. The appellant asked him to open 20 Accounts for Yellow Cab Scheme in the name of his relatives and employees. At that time he was carrying 20 Accounts opening forms duly filled and signed by 20 different persons. These persons on those forms were introduced by Major (Rtd.) Javed Anwar, Sum up P.W. Ahmad Sajid and the remaining by Tariq Masud. He further stated that Ahmad Sajid P.W. gave a cheque of Rs.11,00,000 which was signed by the appellant from the account of PMCHS Lahore. The said cheque was cleared and equity share of 40 vehicles was deposited in 20 Bank accounts along with for Rs.500 each. He stated that pay slips and call deposit forms were filled by Ahmad Sajid P.W. who received all the call deposits and later they were handed over to the appellant. According to him the appellant accompanied by a car dealer of Zahid Motors came to his Branch on 17- 7-1993 and asked about the fate of those applications. He was told that those were sent to the Head office. The appellant threatened this witness that he would withdraw the Account in case the applications were not processed expeditiously. This witness left the charge on 17-7-1993 and the new Manager namely Imtiaz Ali Mansoor P.W. 2 took over 20 drafts according to him were handed over to the car dealer Zahid on 18-7-1993 in the presence of the appellant.
2. Imtiaz Ali Mansoor Manager UBL.He took over charge from Malik Aftab Saeed P.W.
1. He stated that appellant Dr. Azher Atta Malik was introduced to him by Malik Aftab Saeed P.W. 1 that in his presence appellant asked the former to accompany him to Head office in Connection with sanction of loan under the Yellow Cab Scheme and he did accompany him. He stated that the appellant accompanied by Zahid came to the Bank 20 Drafts were handed over to Zahid Motors through Malik Aftab Saeed P.W. in the presence of Dr. Azher Atta Malik appellant. He added that when the draft is sent to the dealer he gets the car registered in the name of Bank and there is a joint, insurance whereafter dealer hands over the vehicles to the applicants.
P.W. 3 Nafees Ahmad KhanHe stated that on15-7-1993. He was the Deposit Incharge in the UBL opposite Services Hospital Branch Lahore. He was called by Malik. Aftab Saeed P.W. in his cabin and asked to open Register, Deposit Slip and Security Deposit Forms. According to him he was told by Malik Aftab Saeed that he had opened 20 accounts in respect of Yellow Cab Scheme.
He handed over to him a cheque of Rs. 1100000 for adjusting the same in the afore-referred 20 accounts which was accordingly done. He said that 10% equity of 40 vehicles Was Rs.10,54,000 the same was adjusted in SDR. & the balance of Rs.36,000 was paid By him to the Manager Malik Aftab Saeed P.W. who handed over the said amount to the appellant in his presence. Further stated that none of the20 accounts holders was present in the cabin of the Manager. The afore-referred cheque according to him was signed on its back by Ahmad Sajid P.W. in his capacity as bearer of cheque.
P.W.
4. Mubarik Ali Cashier UBLHe stated that on 15-7-1993 Nafees Ahmad P.W. came to him with a cheque of Rs11,00,000 the cheque was issued by PMCHS and that he was handed over 20 pay slips of Rs.500 each. Eight forms of SDR were also handed over to him and an amount of Rs,500 each in 20 accounts was adjusted and the balance of Rs.10,54,000 was adjusted in SDR and the remaining amount of Rs.36,000 was handed over by him to Nafees Ahmad P.W.3.
P.W. 5 Dr. Syed Abid RazaHe is one of the persons against whose account was opened loan under the Yellow Cab Scheme was sanctioned without his knowledge using His fictitious signatures. He appeared to state that he never opened any account in the said Branch for facility of the Yellow Cab Scheme. He alleged that since he was member of the PMCHS of which the appellant was Chairman his Identity Card was misused for the afore-referred purpose.
P.W. 6 Asad AkramHe too is a person in whose name, a fictitious Bank account was opened and loan under the Yellow Cab Scheme was sanctioned and availed. He appeared in Court to disown the entire transaction.
P.W. 7 Salamat Ali.His name was also misused. An account was opened in the UBL Branch in question and loan was sanctioned and availed under the Yellow Cab Scheme. He statedthat he neither applied nor availed any loan of afore- referred accounts.
P.W. 8 Ali Sher.He stated that he was jobless and came to Dr. Azher Atta Malik appellant to get a job. At tatter's asking he gave an application alongwith a photo copy a copy of identity card whereafter he was given a job and worked as a chowkidar. Later on he came to know that an account had been opened in the afore-referred Branch in his name. Loan was got sanctioned, which he neither hold nor availed.
P.W.
9. Ahmad SajidHe stated that he was Chief Accountantof PMCHS and appellant accused was its Chairman, that the latter gave him a cheque of Rs.1100000 from the account of afore-referred Housing Society, that the latter also gave him a list of 20 persons along with the afore-referred cheque and asked him to give the cheque to Malik Aftab Saeed P.W. Manager UBL. The said cheque was transferred in the accountof 20 persons. He acknowledged his signatures on the back of the cheque. He admitted that appellant Dr. Azher Atta Malik is his sister's son.
P.W. 10 Dr. Iram Tariq She stated that she applied for a ten marlas plot inherited by the appellant. She deposited the requisite money but plot was never transferred in her name. The identity card and other documents tendered by her at the time of the membership of the Society were misused. An account was got opened in UBL in her name, a loan was got sanctioned and availed without her knowledge. She stated that in 1995 one laved Anwar of PMCHS came to her along with Dr. Azher Atta Malik appellant and asked her to own the afore-referred loan and assured her that they would make the payment. On this she reacted and informed the Chief Minister Punjab who referred the matter to F.I.A.
P.W. 11 Naveed AhmadHe is bona fide purchaser of Daewoo Racer LPT No.8931 which was purchased through the afore-referred loan.
P.W. 12 Yasar ArafatHe too, is a bona fide purchaser of Daewoo Racer which he purchased in auction from UBL.
P.W. 13 Sh. Riazul Haq Vice-President UBLHe is an official of the Bank who produced 29 documents in evidence i.e. documents Ex.P.W.13-I/28. He was at the relevant time was Vice- President of UBL. He produced documents.
P.W.
14. Javed Iftikhar AVP Manager UBL.While posted as the Impounding Officer in Yellow Cab Scheme in UBL he produced documents from Exhs.P.W.14/115 to 14/122.
P.W. 15 Mahboob Hussain SyedHe was posted as the Impounding Officer in the UBL.
P.W. 16 Mrs. Shireen Rizwana.She disowned having been any account in UBL or availed any Loan under the Yellow Cab Scheme the accounts and the subsequent proceedings according to her are fictitious.
P.W. 17 Tariq Aziz Butt.He is a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle LPT 8939 from open auction conducted by UBL.
P.W. 18 Muhammad Shoaib Bhatti.He is an official of the Bank and produced documents Exh.P.Ws. 18/1 and 18/2.
P.W.19 Khalid Naeem KhanHe again is an official of the Bank who produced certain documents Ex.P.W.19/7 P.W. 20 Rizwan Akram SherwaniHe is an official of the Excise and Taxation Department. He produced certain documents i.e. Ex. P. W.20/2-501.
P.W.21 Javed Iqbal Director Excise and Taxation.According to him Zahid Hussain of Zahid Motors accompanied by Dr. Azher Atta Malik appellant came to him and requested for numbers of 20 vehicles of Daewoo Racer.
P.W. 22 Amjad Iqbal Inspector Excise and Taxation Department.He stated that Zahid Hussain of Zahid Motors himself accompanied by Dr. Azher Atta Malik appellant came to him and they wanted to get these vehicles under the Yellow Cab Scheme registered.
P.W. 23 Abdul Hameed Akhtar Excise and Taxation Officer/Assistant Director (Enforcement/Audit).He was posted as Motor Registering Authority in those days employee. He stated that Amjad Iqbal P.W. 22 came to him alongwith the appellant introduced the latter and asked for changing the Registration Numbers of 26 vehicles which were used in duplicates. He stated that after necessary scrutiny he asked Registration Clerk to rectify the record and issued fresh Registration numbers.
P.W. 24 Shafaat Ahmad Officer-I UBL.He was at the relevant time posted as Second Officer. The Manager UBL handed over 20 forms of registration and told him that these forms were signed by the borrowers relating to the vehicles of Dr. Azher Atta Malik appellant and that he should sign these forms on behalf of Bank. He produced Exh.P.W. 20/2-501.
P.W. 25 Sadiq Hassan He was Zonal Chief at the relevant time. He submits that on receipt of the loan applications were put up to him in routine and he sanctioned the loans. He produced relevant documents Exh.P.W.15/38 to Exh.15/57.
P.W. 26 Muhammad Saleem Akhtar Chief ManagerHe was Chief Manager of the Insurance Company. He stated that 32 vehicles under the Yellow Cab Scheme were ensured at the Instance of Atta Enterprises, that appellant Dr. Azher Atta Malik got the vehicles insured through Zonal Manager and that payment was made through four cheques.
P.W. 27 Jamshaid Anwar.He stated that his father Muhammad Anwar died on 13-7-2002 but he neither opened any account in United Bank Ltd. Nor he applied for loan under the Yellow Cab Scheme.
P.W. 28 Mst. Talat AnwarShe is daughter of Muhammad Anwar. She stated that her father never opened any account in UBL nor obtained any loan under the Yellow Cab Scheme.
P.W. 29 Mst. Safia BegumShe disowned having opened any account or having any vehicle under the Yellow Cab Scheme from United Bank Ltd. Opposite Services Hospital Lahore.
P.W. 30 Mrs. Pervaiz Aslam Sheikh, Handwriting Expert Forensic Science Laboratory Lahore.On a reference received from National Account-ability Bureau she compared specimen signatures of appellant Dr. Azher Atta Malik with the questioned signatures on various documents i.e. the applications for loans, on Indemnity Bonds and other documents forming part of the record of the United Bank Ltd which were duly exhibited and the details of which find mention in paragraph 34 of the impugned judgment.
P.W. 31 Waseem Ahmad Deputy Director LDA.He placed on record various documents. The list of which is given in para 36 of the impugned judgment.
P.W. 32 Asif Iqbal Deputy District Officer Revenue.He investigated case.
P.W: 33 Shahid Nasar Raja Deputy Director N.A.B.He too partly investigated the case.
4. The appellant accused in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution story.
He gave a detailed statement which is as under: "The accused stated that he had only one account (No,3044) with UBL Opposite Services Hospital Branch, Lahore and in that account the balance was only Rs,57182. About Account No,2407, he stated that the balance was `nil' as his account had been closed before 15-7-1993. About Account - No,3223 pertaining to Atta Enterprises, he stated that it was not in existence on 15-7-1993 rather it was opened in September 1993. About account No,2406, he stated that it was not his personal account as it was the account of PMCHS and that he was not authorised to transfer any amount from this account to any other account without approval of the Management Committee. He disclosed that on 15-7-1993, the balance in Account No,2406 was insufficient to prove him a valued client, he denied that he had direct access to the personal record of the Members- of the Society.
According to him the record was under the control of the Management Committee and it was the duty of Secretary General to keep entire record in his custody. About the misuse of I.D Cards, he stated that he never obtained any copy of I.D. Card of any Member of the Society. About the equity of the vehicles, he stated that he did not deposit any amount of initial deposit of Rs,500 or 10% equity. He admitted the encashment of cheque No,348360 dated 15-7-1993 from account No,2406 of PMCHS. He states that this cheque was encashed through Ahmad Sajid P.W. The then Accountant PMCHS and the amount of Rs,1.1 million was handed over to the Management Committee in Society's office which was spent for the expenses of the Society. He denied to have moved 20 loan applications on behalf of 20 account holders on the basis of fake authority letters in the name of Zahid Motors. He stated that neither he was a valued customer of the Bank nor did he move any application for sanction of the loan. He stated that' the question of collection of 20 drafts amounting to Rs,9.8 million does not arise at all. About the registration fee of 40 vehicles, he stated that the allegation is unfounded and that there is no such evidence against him on the record.
According to him, he neither issued any cheque for insurance of these Yellow Cabs from his Account No,3223 in the tjame of Atta Enterprises nor did he deposit any cash in this behalf to M/s East West Co and Gulf Insurance Company. He contends that these cheques were deposited by Maj. (R) Javed Anwar who received them as a share money from Atta Enterprises and that he being a single signatory had to sign those cheques as per partnership deed of Atta Enterprises and the Account opening form of Account No,3223. According to him, he never approached Javed Iqbal with the request for 40 Serial Numbers in sequence of the alleged vehicles. He alleges that the evidence has been fabricated by the prosecution. About the renumbering of 26 vehicles in 1994, he stated that he did not get these vehicles renumbered and did not renew registration books with nine LOT numbers and remaining with new LPT series. He denied that, with a view to get pecuniary advantage of Rs,7.746 millions (updated loss Rs, 11.275 million) through fraud he got sanctioned loan for 40 vehicles under Prime Minister's Yellow Cab Scheme in the names of 20 different persons.
He contends that he did not visit UBL nor any documents were handed over to him. Regarding report of Handwriting Expert, he stated that he was never produced before the Magistrate namely, Waseem Ahmad P.W. He contends that there is no evidence against him and that no vehicle has been recovered from him. He alleges that the case has been fabricated against him to keep him under pressure for plea-bargain in previous reference No,4/2001. According to him, he has been falsely involved in this case and has been made a scapegoat to save the actual culprits namely Ahmad Sajid, Aftab Saeed Malik and Maj (R) Javed Anwar".
5. In defence he produced D.W.l Attiqur Rehman (Registrar) (Firms Lahore) who stated that the firm by the name of Atta Enterprises was registered on the joint application filed by Dr. Azher Atta Malik appellant, Javed Anwar and Malik Faisal Qayyum. He gave up D.Ws. Namely Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Sarwar, Ghulam Hussain and Malik Muhammad Ashraf Handwriting Expert as unnecessary.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal made following submissions.
(i) That the learned trial Court mainly relied on the statement of Malik Aftab Saeed PW1 the then Manager of the UBL opposite Services Hospital Lahore. He alongwith Major (R). Javed Anwar and the appellant were accused in the instant reference. However, the prosecution withdrew the case to the extent of the remaining accused and proceeded to prosecute the appellant. Although Malik Aftab Saeed P.W.l was an accomplice but was produced as the star prosecution witness without recourse to the procedure ' laid down in section 26 of the NAB Ordinance which vitiated the trial.
(ii) That P.Ws. 14 and 15 produced certain documents but they never stated that those documents carried the signatures of the appellant yet those were sent to the handwriting expert alongwith the specimen signatures of the appellant and the report received was to the effect that they were sent by the same persons. In absence of any specific assertion by P.Ws. 14 and 15 with regard to the appellant signatures the report of the handwriting expert is Of no avail to the prosecution that P.W.
30 did not have any degree.
(iii) That there is nothing on record to indicate as to how much was the total loss of money suffered by the Bank in absence of which the list submitted could not be quantified. But qualified her as a handwriting expert and the opinion rendered by her is not based on any reasoning.
(iv) That the prosecution story does not appeal to common sense and it is not believable that a Senior Bank Officer like P.W.l Malik Aftab Saeed would open the accounts of fictitious persons sanctioned loan for their favour under the Yellow Cab Scheme and issue the requisite drafts as well.
(v) That the Court has not exercised discretion vested in it under section 397, Cr.P.C. By not directing that the sentence of the appellant shall run concurrently with the sentence that the appellant was already undergoing at the time of the passage of impugned judgment.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the appeal and made following submissions:
(i) That the prosecution had simply withdrawn the case to the extent of Major (R) Javed Anwar with the consent of the Court in terms of section 31-D of NAB Ordinance and it was not a pardon within the meaning of section 26 of the said Ordinance. In the latter Ordinance the consent of Court is not required the power is vested^ in the Chairman of NAB and it is to be exercised on the condition that the accused shall make a full and true disclosure of the facts and circumstances within his knowledge. The witness in question having been based under section 31-B of the Ordinance was a competent witness to depose and no objection can be raised to it.
(ii) That it is in evidence that appellant personally went to the UBL to open the account in the name of 20 fictitious persons, that he issued the cheque which was en-cashed by his near relative to deposit the equity amount in the afore-referred accounts, that the loan sanctioned and the Bank drafts for the vehicles in question were given to Zahid Motors at the asking of the appellant and he is fully involved in the alleged offence.
(iii) That the statement of the. Concerned officials of the Excise and Taxation Officer fully incriminate the appellant and there is no reason why the witness the witness who falsely deposed against him.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through evidence. The prosecution case consists of oral and documentary evidence. The Manager of the concerned Branch of the UBL namely Malik Aftab Saeed appeared as P.W.l. He has candidly stated that the appellant alongwith Ahmad Sajid, Major (R) Javed Anwar and Tariq Masood came to him for opening 20 accounts of different persons and that those persons had not appeared before him and instead of those forms they were introduced by the appellant and those who accompanied, the appellant through the afore-referred fake documents obtained a pecuniary advantage of 7.746 millions or ultimately cards a list of Rs, 11.27 million with the Bank. P.W.2 Imtiaz Ali Mansoor is the Bank Manager who succeeded P.W.l after the latter's transfer from the said Branch. He corroborates the statement, so far as the role attributed to Dr. Azher Atta Malik appellant in opening these 20 accounts and that having loan sanctioned in favour of these account-holders for the purchase of 20 vehicles under the Yellow Cab Scheme is concerned. P.W.3 Nafees Ahmad Khan is yet another official of the Bank who endorse the statement of P.Ws.l and 2. This witness also stated that the cheque issued by the appellant for a sum of Rs, 1100000 was adjusted in 20 accounts by way of depositing Rs,500 each as the initial deposit for opening the accounts and by depositing 10% equity in each accounts. Similarly P.W. 4 in his capacity as Cashier in the said Branch of UBL further strengthens the testimony of the afore- referred witness. All these witnesses are Bank officials. There is not an iota of evidence or even a suggestion to be effected that they were in any way inimical towards the appellant. P.W. 5 Dr. Syed Abid Raza, P.W. 6 Asad Akram, P.W.7 Salamat Ali and P.W. 8 Ali Sher. P.Ws 6 to 8 and 10. P.W. 10 Dr. Iram Tariq, P.W. 16 Mrs. Shireen Rizwana, P.W.27 Jamshaid Anwar, Mst. Talat Anwar P.W.28 and P.W.29 Mst. Safia Begum are the persons whose identity cards were, misused, accounts were opened in their names the loan was got sanctioned in their names under the Yellow Cab Scheme. The amount was drawn to purchase the vehicles in question which were misappropriated. These witnesses too had no enmity with the appellant to falsely depose against him. P.W.9 Ahmad Sajid was admittedly Chief Accountant of PMCHS and maternal uncle of the appellant. He has corroborated the statement of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the competence of P.W.30 Mrs. Pervaiz Aslam to give report with regard to the comparison of the specimen signatures of the appellant with the questioned signatures. This witness has carried out the exercise of comparison with regard to several documents which according to the prosecution bore the handwriting or signatures of the appellant. She gave following reports in this regard. {{DATA UNARRANGED}} Exh.P.W.30/15, Exh.P.W.30/25, Exh.P.W.30/35, Exh.P.W.30/45, Exh.P.W.30/55, Exh.P.W.30/65, Exh.P.W.30/75, Exh.P.W.30/85, Exh.P.W. 30/95 and Exh.P.W.30/100" "Her reports are Exh.P.W.3Q/5, Exh.P.W.30/10, Exh.P.W.30/20, Exh.P.W.30/30, Exh.P.W.30/40, Exh.P.W.30/50, Exh.P.W.30/60, Exh.P.W.30/70, Exh.P.W.30/80, Exh.P.W.30/90, {{DATA UNAARRANGED}}
10. The evidence of a handwriting expert is to be treated at par with any other witness. The opinion of a handwriting expert is a piece of circumstantial evidence which seeks to corroborate the other evidence available on record. The oral evidence to which reference has been made in the preceding paragraphs fully incriminate the appellant,. That he came to the bank along with already filled forms, that he asked the Manager to open 20 different accounts and for sanctioning the loan under the Yellow Cab Scheme for purchase of 40 vehicles, that he was exerted pressure on Bank officials to expedite the approval of loan, that he came to the Bank B along with Car dealer, that at his asking the drafts for the purchase of vehicles were given to the said dealer, that it was he who went to the insurance company for the requisite insurance of the vehicles in question and that he went to the office of the Excise and Taxation for their registration as well. The statement of P.W. 30 Handwriting Expert has to be read along with these chains/limbs of the prosecution case.
The appellant during trial never challenged the expertise of P.W. 30 as a Handwriting expert by producing some other Handwriting Expert in defence or by requesting^ the Court to refer the reports given by the Handwriting expert P.W. 30 to some other Handwriting expert for a second opinion or for constituting a Board to carry out such an exercise. Rather he placed on record before the trial Court a list of witnesses that he wanted to produce in defence and a handwriting expert was included in the list but they were given up (Malik Muhammad Ashraf Handwriting Expert) as unnecessary.
11. The argument of the learned counsel of the appellant that since P.W.l Malik Affcab Saeed was initially an accused and therefore an accomplice his evidence should not be considered is not tenable for more than one reason. Firstly the evidence of an accomplice cannot be outrightly rejected and can be relied upon if it is corroborated by instant evidence and material on record.
Secondly having been discharged under section 31-B of National Accountability Ordinance, P.W.l was a witness like any other witness and if his testimony inspires confidence and finds support from other evidence on record he has to be extended credence. An objective analysis of the prosecution evidence would show that it consisted of witness with whom appellant had neither any enmity nor was it so suggested, of documentary evidence veracity of which was endorsed by the hand-writing expert and of other independent circumstantial evidence which inspired confidence.
The appellant did not lead my evidence except D.W.l and did not even appear as his own witness in defence to rebut the charges and the evidence led against him. The allegation of DW1 Attiqur Rehman Registrar (Firms) is of no consequence, so far as the case against the appellant is concerned. Thus the prosecution case stands proved beyond reasonable doubt to sustain conviction.
12. Coming to appellant's prayer that his sentence should run concurrently, with the sentence that he was already undergoing we are conscious of section 397, Cr.P.C which inter alia mandates as under.
"Sentence of offender already sentenced for another offence. When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, or imprisonment for life, is sentenced to imprisonment, or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence".
' The principle enshrined in the afore-referred provision is that if a person is already undergoing his sentence and he is convicted and sentenced in a different case unless the Court directs, otherwise the sentence so awarded has to commence on the expiration of the sentence, which the person was already undergoing. Consecutive sentence is a general rule while concurrent sentence is an exception. The Court may direct the sentences to run concurrently if the earlier case in which the person was undergoing sentence is intimately connected with the other or the transactions are similar in nature. In the instant case the allegation against the appellant was that he defrauded the Bank through misrepresentation, forgery and misappropriated a huge amount. The persons defrauded are different, the period is different and the nature of transaction is different. In these circumstances we have no tenable ground to direct that the sentences awarded in the instant case should run concurrently with the ones that he was already undergoing in a different case.
13. For what has been discussed above there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.