JUDGMENT SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---The appellant was employed by Habib Bank Ltd. As Officer/C.D. Incharge and was posted at Ubauro Branch of the Bank at the relevant time. He was tried for an offence under sections 409/461/471/477-A, P. P. C . Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was convicted and sentenced as under:--
(1) Under section 409, P.P.C.: R.I. Of 7 years and fine of Rs.8,50,000 and in case of default in payment of fine to further under go R.I.
Of one year. The amount if recovered to be paid to the Bank.
(2) Under section 467 PPC: R.I. Of 7 years, and fine of Rs.50,000 and in case of default in payment of fine to further under go R.I.
For three months.
(3) Under section 477-A PPC: R.I. Of 5 years.
2. The facts as alleged in the F.I.R. No. 29/1999 recorded at Police Station F.I.A., CBC, Karachi were that a fraud had been committed at Ubauro Branch of Habib Bank Ltd. On 10-11-1998 through encashment of cheque for Rs.8,50,000 under forged signatures. It was stated that Messrs Naeem Shaheed Cotton Ginning and Oil Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Company) was maintaining account at the branch. On 10-11-1998 Cheque No. 25841968 for an amount of Rs.8,50,000 was brought to the branch by two unknown young persons. The Manager was on leave and in his absence 2nd Officer Nisar Ahmed Taheem (acquitted co-accused) was acting as Manager. He reportedly was late in coming to the branch on the eventful day and in his absence appellant being C.D. Incharge attended these persons. Cash available in the branch was not sufficient and consequently a HBL cheque drawn on National Bank of Pakistan cheque was issued to these persons who subsequently collected cash from National Bank of Pakistan. The scam was discovered by the Company later in the day when it was informed by the bank that its account had insufficient balance and then it discovered the fraudulent cheque and encashment thereof.
Charge was framed in the following words:- "That on 10-11-1998 you accused Nisar Ahmed Taheem while posted as Officiating Manager and you accused Sher D.1 Khoso while posted as Officer/CD Incharge of Habib Bank Ltd., Ubauro Branch, District Ghotki and as such Public Servants, were entrusted with the Bank's Funds, on 10-11-1998, in furtherance and common intention of you both, knowingly and dishonestly forged signatures of A/c holder on a bearer Cheque No.25841968 dated 5-11-1998 for Rs.8,50,000 pertaining to CD Account No. 5-69 of Messrs Naeem Shaheed Cotton Ginning and Oil Mills Ltd., and subsequently passed under the signatures of you both for payment and for want of sufficient cash, you both issued NBP Cheque No. 037132 dated 10-11-1998 for Rs.8,50,000 pertaining to Account No. CD-70 maintained at NBP and got it encashed from NBP thereby committed the offences of criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs.8,50,000 forgery of valuable security, using forged document as genuine, falsification of Bank's Books of Account and criminal misconduct punishable under sections 409/467/471/477-A, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of PCA-II of 1947 within the cognizance of this Court."
3. At the trial Kandero Khan D.1, Manager of the Bank was produced as P.W.1. PW.2 was Shamsuddin, Inspector F.I.A. Who recorded the F.I.R. P.W.3 was Shamsuddin Junejo, the Investigating Officer.
Jamaluddin Tunio, a Clerk of Habib Bank was P.W.4 and Liaquat Ali, cashier of the Bank was P.W.S. P.W.6 was Ghulam Shabbir who had been Manager at Ubauro Branch, while Shaukat Ali Handwriting Expert was P.W.7. Muhammad Umer another employee of Habib Bank was P.W.B.
Muhammad Ali Leghari was P.W.9 and Haresh Chandar and Munir Ahmed Awan employees of National Bank of Pakistan were P.W.10 and 11 respectively. Muhammad Iqbal Managing Director of the company was P.W.12. Abdul Qadir Shaikh Manager of United Bank Limited was P.W.13 and Faiz Muhammad, Zonal Chief of Habib Bank Ltd., was P.W.14.
4. In his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. The present appellant denied the charges. However, he submitted a detailed statement under section 265, Cr.P.C. The trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 10-9-2008 convicted the appellant as stated above. It however, acquitted the co-accused Nisar Ahmed Taheem.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:--
(1) Forging of signatures on the cheque in question has not been established through any ocular evidence. Cheque issue Register has not been produced. Even the Handwriting Expert who appeared as P.W.7 gave a clear opinion (Exh. 13/C) that neither the handwriting nor the signatures on the cheque in question match with the handwriting or signatures of the appellant.
(2) The appellant did not issue the cheque book in question. The appellant only verified the signatures on the requisition slip and was not the issuing officer.
(3) Cheque issue Register has not been produced. P.W.6 has admitted that the two signatures on the requisition slip (Exh. 6/C) do not match with each other. This indicates that signatures of the Account Holder were not firm. If there was a discrepancy in the signatures of the appellant in the requisition slip and signatures on the specimen card, it can at best be an act of negligence or dereliction of duty and cannot be said to be an act of fraud and more so in the absence of any clear evidence in this regard.
(4) It is also to be seen that after the cheque-book was issued in whose custody was the cheque- book all along.
(5) Cheque-book in question was issued on 3-11-1998 and it had 100 leaves. By November 9, 1998, 79 cheques had been used.
The fraudulent cheque bore No.25841968. When Cheque Nos.67 and 69 were used it was not discovered by the Company that Cheque No. 68 did not exist in the cheque book or had been fraudulently removed from the cheque book. Cheque book itself has not been produced. Had it been produced the counterfoils could have been checked by the Court. Even admittedly issued cheques have not been produced to establish practice of the Company as to how cheques were issued.
(6) Even if it is assumed that the appellant gave the cheque book, there is no evidence to show that the appellant tampered with the cheque book while the cheque book was handed over to representative of the Company.
(7) There was no instruction or direction that before encashing a cheque confirmation must be obtained from the Account Holder.
(8) Co-accused had been acquitted and only evidence against the appellant which can be classified as evidence additional to the evidence against the co-accused was that it is alleged that appellant gave undertaking and issued cheque for Rs. 650,000 and also undertook to pay Rs.200,000. Neither such undertaking has been produced nor the cheque of Rs.6,50,000 which it is claimed was dishonoured when presented, has been produced. Any admission made by the appellant before the departmental authorities cannot be used as an evidence against the appellant in the criminal trial. Learned counsel relied upon number of case law to which we shall refer at the appropriate place in the judgment.
6. Learned D.A.G. On the other hand made the following submissions:--
(1) All the witnesses have implicated the appellant and immediately after the incident the appellant issued a cheque in presence of witnesses and testimony of such witnesses has not been shattered.
(2) It was a practice that confirmation had to be sought from Account Holder before encashing cheque for higher amounts.
(3) The appellant issued the cheque book and while issuing the chequebook he detached a leaf from it. The conduct of the appellant in promptly processing the cheque by two strangers creates doubt against the appellant.
(4) The fact that the appellant issued cheque of Rs. 650,000 clearly leads the presumption that he got the benefit of the scam.
(5) While concluding D.A.G. Submitted that the bank offences are rampant and such acts if left unpunished would destroy business of banks.
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and have gone through the case- law as well as the record.
8. This is a case in which there is no direct evidence and the evidence against the appellant is purely of the nature of circumstantial evidence. The following was observed in respect of existence and evaluation of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases by this Bench in Mst. Saima alias Sobia v. State and Zaheer Ahmed Abbasi v. State (Special Criminal A.T.A. No.12 of 2007 and Special Criminal A.T.A. No.13 of 2007):-- "(13) Thus, it appears that if charge is based on circumstantial evidence the Court is not precluded from holding a person guilty or from imposing maximum permissible punishment if the charge is proved. However, each of the circumstance must be treated a link in the chain and if at any stage any of the links in the chain is found missing or is found without any strength, due to acidic licking by the benefit of doubt or otherwise, no conviction can be based on such circumstantial evidence.
Duty of the Judge deciding a case based on circumstantial evidence is much more onerous than duty in a case of direct ocular evidence. In the first case, the Court has to be extremely careful in ensuring that not only all the chains in the link exist but also to come to the conclusion, by independent and separate evaluation of evidence in respect of the each and every link of the chain, that sturdiness of each of such links is unimpeachable. As stated in mechanical engineering that in case of chains consisting of various links strength of the chain is equal to the strength of the weakest link. Therefore, if evidence consists of a chain of circumstances then each link in the chain must stand its on test of judicial scrutiny. A single weak link, a single missing link, would have the effect of annulling the entire other evidence."
9. It is in the light of the above that we have, to evaluate the evidence against the appellant.
10. The chain of the evidence appears to be, in chronological order and as alleged by the prosecution, as under:--
(1) On a requisition slip for issuing cheque-book, cheque-book was issued by the appellant.
(2) While issuing the cheque-book the appellant surreptitiously removed Cheque leaf Nos. 68 from the cheque-book.
(3) That cheque was filled for an amount of Rs. 8 50,000 and was encashed on 10-11-1998.
(4) On 10-11-1998 two strangers came when neither the Manager nor Acting Manager was present in the branch. The appellant passed the cheque and, in good faith, the co-accused countersigned it. Since sufficient cash was not available a National Bank of Pakistan cheque was issued. Appellant then facilitated the two persons in getting cheque encashed from National Bank of Pakistan.
(5) The Company discovered scam later on when it was informed that there was no sufficient balance.
(6) The appellant confessed in writing before the bank authorities that he had committed fraud. He gave Cheque of Rs.650,000 and a undertaking to pay Rs.200,000. He did not pay the amount in cash and subsequently even the cheque was dishonoured.
11. The first link is that it is alleged by the prosecution that on a requisition slip for issuing cheque- book, cheque-book was issued by the appellant. The appellant's defence is that he only verified signatures on the requisition slip and he did not issue the cheque-book. The witnesses produced by the Bank namely P.W.1 Kandero Khan D.1, who was posted at the Ubauro Branch as Manager at the relevant time in his examination-in-chief did not say a single word about as to who issued the chequebook in question. P.W.4. Jamaluddin Tunio, who was Posting Clerk at the relevant time also did not utter a single word in this regard. Same is position of P.W.5 Liaquat Ali who was posted as Cashier in the branch at material time. Similarly the other witnesses produced by the Bank did not utter a single word that it was the appellant who had issued the cheque-book. Under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that there is always a Cheque-book issue Register when the cheque book issued. Such register must have been in possession of the Bank. None of the official witnesses produced that cheque-book issue register.
Even the Investigating Officer remained silent in this regard. Therefore, all that has been proved is that the signatures on the requisition slip were verified by the appellant but the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to prove that it was the appellant who had issued cheque-book to the representative of the Company.
12. Thereafter it is alleged that while issuing the cheque book the appellant surreptitiously removed Cheque No. 68 from the cheque-book. P.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that he had no personal knowledge that whether disputed cheque was detached from the cheque-book by the present appellant at the time of giving cheque-book to the party. The other persons who were logically present at the branch at the material time being Jamaluddin Tunio, P.W.4 and Liaquat Ali P.W.S. They have also not said a single word in this regard. The cheque-book was received by a representative of the Company and thereafter it remained in their possession all along. P.W.12, Muhammad Iqbal who is Chief Executive of the Company, stated that on 3-11-1998 he went to Habib Bank and demanded cheque-book and the appellant gave him the cheque-book in an envelope. He stated that he did not count the leaves. He further stated that his Accountant informed him that one leaf was short in the cheque book. He directed his Accountant and he himself went into the Bank and met the present appellant and co-accused and informed that one cheque was missing. He went on to state that the present appellant and co-accused verified the record and informed that said leaf had been encashed for Rs.850,000. He further stated that they were shown the cheque and he found that his signatures were forged on the cheque. In cross- examination he admitted that he had signed the requisition slip and also that he had signed the acknowledgement of receipt of chequebook. He also admitted that after receiving cheque-book he handed it over to the Accountant and the cheque-book remained with the Accountant till the incident came to surface. A reading of this evidence clearly indicates that the receipt of cheque- book was acknowledged by the witness. After the cheque book was received it remained with the Accountant. Cheques Still No.79 had been issued and thereafter when insufficient balance was reported then it was discovered that, according to the witness, cheque No. 68 was missing. Firstly there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that while giving the cheque-book (even if it is assumed that it is the appellant who gave the cheque-book to P.W.12) or even before giving the cheque-book the leaf was surreptitiously removed by the appellant from the cheque-book.
Moreover, the cheque-book remained with the Company and its Accountant. Cheques up to No. 79 were issued. It is a bit odd that when Cheque No. 67 was issued then Cheque No.69 was issued the Accountant did not discover that Cheque No.68 was missing. He only discovered when he was informed that there was insufficient balance. Every cheque carries a counterfoil which remains in the cheque-book. Chequebook has not been produced to establish as to what was the practice of the Company in respect of writing notations on the counter foils and it is not even alleged by any witness that not only the cheque in question but also the counterfoil had been removed. All this leads to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant removed the cheque in question at the time of delivering the cheque to the representative of the Company.
13. The cheque has been produced and it has come in evidence clearly (P.W.7, Handwriting Expert, Shaukat Ali) that the writing and signatures on the cheque in question do not tally with the writing and signatures of the appellant. Thus, evidence is unimpeachable that the present appellant did not write or sign on the cheque in question.
14. It is alleged that upon discovery of the Cheque No. 68 having been encashed earlier the present appellant gave a cheque for Rs.650,000 and undertook to pay Rs.200,000. It is further alleged that the cheque given by the present appellant was dishonoured and the present appellant did not subsequently pay Rs.200,000 as allegedly promised by him. P.W.1, who was Manager of the Branch at the material time, in his evidence stated that in his presence the appellant gave a cheque for Rs.650,000 and promised to pay an amount of Rs.200,000. P.W.4, also stated that cheque for Rs.650 000 was obtained from the appellant and the appellant promised to pay Rs.200,000. He also stated that this was got done by the Zonal Chief. In cross-examination he admitted that he did not know whether the cheque etc. Was obtained from the appellant under coercion. P.W.5, Cashier in the branch stated that he was informed by the co-accused Nisar that the appellant had given a cheque. His evidence is essentially that of hearsay. He also admitted that cheque in question was not obtained in his presence. P.W.8 stated that Zonal Chief, District Manager Muhammad Ali Leghari (P.W.9), the appellant and P.W.12, went to the IInd floor of the branch and it was subsequently disclosed to him that cheque for Rs.650,000 had been given by the appellant. P.W.9, stated that a cheque was given by the appellant but he did not mention regarding presence of P.W.12. P.W.12, stated that Zonal Chief and others obtained the cheque from the appellant and he gave it to him.
Thereafter he did not say that he was present when cheque was taken. Faiz Muhammad, Zonal Chief was P.W.14. He stated that during the inquiry the appellant admitted and then issued a cheque for Rs. 650,000 as well as gave an undertaking to pay Rs.200,000.
However, in cross-examination he admitted that the appellant did not give any undertaking.
15. Cheque for Rs. 650,000 has not been produced in evidence. Even if it is assumed that it was admitted by the appellant and even if it is assumed that cheque for Rs.650,000 was given by the appellant which cheque was subsequently dishonoured, all it amounts to is an extrajudicial- confession.
16. In Tahir Javed v. The State 2009 SCM R 166, the facts were that it was alleged that the complainant was present at his dera when appellant along with others came there and took son of the complainant with him. Subsequently dead body of son of the complainant was recovered from a bank of a canal. The accused gave an extrajudicial-confession. The Supreme Court observed as under:-- "It may be noted here that since extra-judicial confession is easy to procure as it can be cultivated at any time therefore, normally it is considered as a weak piece of evidence and Court would expect sufficient and reliable corroboration for such type of evidence. The extra-judicial confession therefore must be considered with over all context of the prosecution case and the evidence on record. Right from the case of Ahmed v. The Crown PLD 1951 FC 107 it has been time and again laid down by this Court that extra-judicial confession can be used against the accused only when it comes from unimpeachable sources and trustworthy evidence is available to corroborate it.
Reference in this regard may usefully be made too the following reported judgments:--
(1) Sajid Mumtaz and others v. Basharat and others 2006 SCM R 231, (2) Ziaul Rehman's v. The State 2001 SCM R 1405, (3) Tayyab Hussain Shah v. The State 2000 SCM R 683, (4) Sarfraz Khan v. The State and others 1996 SCM R 188."
17. In Muhammad Kamran and another v. The State 2003 SCM R 1070, facts were that on the fateful day complainant Fateh Muhammad was informed that his grand daughter while playing had left the house at about 2-00 p.m and was missing since that time. Complainant launched a hectic search which ended at about 7-30 p.m. When dead body of the girl, aged about six years, was found lying in the bushes. She had been subjected to rape and strangulation by her Shalwar.
Report was, lodged against unknown culprits. It is claimed that some time later appellant confessed before two relatives. Such extra-judicial confession was disowned by the appellant at the trial. The Supreme Court laid down the following principles in respect of extra-judicial confession:-- "(7) Before adverting to the extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant we deem it necessary to highlight the principles enunciated by this Court from time to time in regard to evaluation of an extra-judicial confession. It was held in Ahmed v. The Crown (PLD 1951 FC 107) that extra-judicial confession must be received with utmost Caution. The principle was reiterated in Abdul Latif v. Crown (PLD 1952 Federal Court 113) wherein it was also held that there should be some corroborative evidence to the effect that the alleged extra-judicial confession was not only made but was also voluntary and true. In Sarfraz Khan v. State (1996 SCM R 188) it was observed that extrajudicial confession is a weak type of evidence which can be easily procured whenever direct evidence of the crime is not available, therefore, while placing reliance on it, the Courts should use utmost care and caution. A three-fold proof is required to make the extrajudicial confession the basis of conviction. First, that in fact it was made, secondly, that it was voluntarily made and, thirdly, it was truly made."
18. In Sajid Mumtaz and others v. Basharat and others, 2006 SCM R 231, regarding extra-judicial confession it was elaborately laid down by the Supreme Court as under:- "17. Last but not the least are the extra-judicial confessions of all the accused, out of whom those of Basharat and Mst. Naghma are joint one. This requires somewhat detailed discussion. This Court and its predecessor Court (Federal Court) have elaborately laid down the law regarding extra- judicial confessions staring from Ahmed v. The Crown PLD 1951 FC 107 up to the latest. Extra-judicial confession has always been taken with a pinch of salt. In Ahmed v. The Crown, it was observed that in this country (as a whole) extrajudicial confession must be received with utmost caution. Further, it was observed from time to time, that before acting upon a retracted extra-judicial confession, the Court must inquire into all material points and surrounding circumstances to "satisfy itself fully that the confession cannot but be true".
As, an extra-judicial confession is not a direct evidence, it must be corroborated in material particulars before being made the basis of conviction.
18-A. It has been further held that the status of the person before whom the extrajudicial confession is made must be kept in view, that joint confession cannot be sued against either of them and that it is always a weak type of evidence which can easily be procured whenever direct evidence is not available. Exercise of utmost care and caution has always been the rule prescribed by this Court.
19. It is but a natural curiosity to ask as to why a person of same mind should at all confess. No doubt the phenomenon of confession is not altogether unknown but being a human conduct, it had to be visualized, appreciated and consequnted upon purely in the background of a human conduct.
20. Why a person guilty of offence entailing capital punishment should at all confess. There could be a few motivating factors like: (i) to boast of, (ii) to ventilate the suffocating conscience and (i.e) to seek help when actually trapped by investigation. Boasting of is very rare in such like heinous offences where fear dominates and is always done before an extreme confident as well as the one who shares close secrets. To make confession in order to give vent to ones pressure on mind and conscience is another aspect of the same psyche. One gives vent to ones feelings and one removes catharses only before a strong and close confident. In the instant case the position of the witnesses before whom extra-judicial confession is made is such that they are neither the close confident of the accused or in any manner said to be sharing any habit or association with the accused. Both the possibilities of boasting and ventilating in the circumstances are excluded from consideration.
21. Another most important and natural purpose of making extra-judicial confession is to seek help from a third person. Help is sought firstly, when a person is sufficiently trapped and secondly, from one who is authoritative, socially or officially. The witnesses in hand before whom the confessions are said to have been made are of no social or official status. One Falak Sher (P.W.16) is a junior clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, the other Noor Muhammad (P.W.17) is a petty fodder-seller and the third Ahmed Taqi (P.W.19) is a teacher in a private school. It is yet to be answered as to what help could they have rendered to the accused when involved in a heinous case of murder as well as abduction for ransom. Least to mention that the dead body having been recovered on 23rd, none of the accused had any apprehension of being suspected, involved or arrested on the day of making extra-judicial confessions. These are absolutely unnatural.
22. As observed by the Federal Court, we would reiterate especially referring to this part of the country, that extra-judicial confessions have almost become a norm when the prosecution cannot otherwise succeed. Rather, it may be observed with concern as well as with regret that when the Investigating Officer fails to properly investigate the case, he resorts to padding and concoctions like extra-judicial confessions. Such confessions by now, have become the signs of incompetent investigation. A judicial mind, before relying upon such weak type of evidence, capable of being effortlessly procured must ask a few questions like why the accused should at all confess, what is the time lag between the occurrence and the confession, whether the accused had been fully trapped during investigation before making the confession, what is the nature and gravity of the offence involved, what is the relationship or friendship of the witnesses with the maker of confession and what, above all is the position or authority held by the witness."
23. In Wazir Muhammad and another v. State, 2005 SCM R 277 it was observed that extra-judicial confession was a very weak type of confession and no conviction could have been awarded without there being strong corroboration.
24. In the present case, it is alleged that an extra-judicial confession was made by the present appellant and he gave a cheque. It is claimed that the cheque was dishonoured. The cheque in question has not been produced. No other document was produced to establish that the cheque in question was lodged in the bank and was therefore, subsequently dishonoured. Mere word of mouth being a piece of ocular evidence in the presence of the documentary evidence i.e. The cheque and such other documents establishing that the cheque was lodged and dishonoured, which documentary evidence has not been produced, in view of provisions contained in Article 102 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order cannot be relied upon. No explanation whatsoever has been provided by any of the witnesses as to why the cheque in question and the other documents establishing lodgment of cheque and its dishonouring were not or could not have been produced.
Therefore, for two reasons such extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon firstly because it is what it is: an extra-judicial confession uncorroborated by easily available documentary evidence and secondly in presence of availability of documentary evidence which should have been naturally available and which has not been produced, oral evidence cannot be relied upon.
25. It is alleged that on 10-11-1999 two strangers came with the Cheque No. 68 when neither Manager nor Acting Manager were present in the branch. It is further alleged that the appellant passed the cheque and the co-accused in good faith, countersigned it. It is further alleged that since sufficient cash was not available a cheque drawn on National Bank was issued signed by the present appellant and the co-accused and the two strangers were sent to National Bank and when National Bank hesitated to pay to them, the present appellant got in touch with 'National Bank and facilitated the strangers in getting cash from National Bank. Learned DAG vehemently argued that such conduct with such "super efficiency" by an employee could not be without any quid pro quo.
He further argued that it creates a doubt on the conduct of the appellant. A complete answer to the argument of the learned counsel exists in the case of Zulfiqar Ali Shar v. The State PLD 2007 Kar.
536, wherein a Bank cashier was alleged to have pocketed the amount. Mr. Justice Rehmat Hussain Jafferi (as his lordship then was, and now gracing the Hon'ble Supreme Court) writing for a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:-- "The case involves the offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under section 409, P.P.C. A five members Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Shakir Hussain v. The State (PLD 1956 SC (Pak) 417) B examined the question as to how the prosecution was required to prove such offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where the charge against an accused person is that of criminal breach of trust the prosecution must prove not only entrustment of or dominion over property but also that the accused either dishonestly misappropriated, converted, used or disposed of that property himself or that he wilfully offered some other person to do so. It was further observed that the prosecution must affirmatively prove these ingredients of the offence unless the receipt of the money is admitted and the accused offers no satisfactory explanation of what he did with it."
26.
27. Even otherwise benefit of doubt if any whether caused by the conduct or by hyper efficiency of the appellant or otherwise must go to the person being tried and prosecution cannot be allowed to take advantage of such a doubt. A doubt aids the defence and mars the prosecution.
28. It is alleged by the prosecution that signatures on the cheque in question do match signatures on the Specimen Signatures Card available with the Bank. On the other hand it is claimed by the prosecution that though the signatures on the requisition slip are admitted by the Company, the two signatures on the Specimen Signatures Card are different and both of them do not match the signatures on the Specimen Signatures Card. However, defence of the appellant was that signatures of the representative of the company were not firm. Be that as it may, if an employee of the Bank while comparing signatures with the Specimen Signatures Card commits an error or with gross negligence passes a document or verifies a signatures it may be misconduct under the rules of the Organization for which the employer may be justified in taking disciplinary action or imposing penalty committing of such misconduct or negligence in verifying the signatures could not be held to have established that employee had cheated a customer of the Bank or had committed an offence.
28. The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the present appellant. Consequently, appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment is set aside. Appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds and the sureties are discharged.