' IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.---This Criminal Appeal has arisen out of Criminal Petition No. 106-K of 2010. Leave granting order is reproduced herein below:-- "The learned Advocate Supreme Court has basically argued that the charge against the petitioner was two fold viz that he in connivance with one Umer Shahzad Baig had opened an account in Askari Commercial Bank, New Challi Branch, Karachi and thereafter forged the signature of one of the account holders of his bank viz Allied Bank, Dastagir Colony Branch, Karachi, on a cheque pertaining to an amount of Rs. 52 Lacs in the name of Umer Shahzad Baig, which was deposited by latter in his own account in Askari Bank. Secondly that once the said cheque came up for clearance to the petitioner's branch he not only cleared it but also forged the advice given, to National Institutions Financial Technology (NIFT), responsible for finally clearing the inter-bank cheques and consequently, this amount of Rs. 52 Lacs was credited to the account of Umer Shahzad Baig and withdrawn fraudulently. The learned Advocate Supreme Court has further submitted that the charges were not proved basically because first the cheque in question of Rs.
52 Lacs was never produced in evidence from which it could be deduced whether or not the petitioner had passed it for clearing. Secondly, learned Advocate Supreme Court has submitted that both the trial Court as well as High Court have held that the signature on the voucher in question giving the advise to NIFT for clearance of the cheque was that of the petitioner although the Hand Writing Expert was never produced in evidence. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court as well as the learned DAG. In our opinion, leave should be granted to reassess the evidence based on the arguments of the learned Advocate Supreme Court viz. Effect of cheque in question which was never produced and also whether the, admitted signature of the petitioner matched those on the voucher, which was purportedly sent to NIFT for clearance.
' The judgment of the learned Division Bench of the High Court dated 19-7-2010 has been challenged as Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2010 has been dismissed which was filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 14-4-2010 through which appellant was convicted in the following manner:--
(1) Under section 409, P.P.C.: R.I. For 7 years with fine of Rs.30,00,000 and in case of default further simple imprisonment of 21 months.
(2) Under section 468, P.P.C.: R.I. For 7 years and fine of Rs.22,00,000 and in case of default further imprisonment of 21 months.
(3) Under section 471, P.P.C., R.I. For one year.
(4) Under section 477-A,. P.P.C., R.I. For 5 years.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a Manager of Dastagir Colony Branch of Allied Bank Limited. Mst. Shahana Ameen was maintaining a Saving Bank Account No.318203 at the said Branch. She moved an application and got closed her account on 23-2-2006. On 6-6-2006 transaction of transfer through Bank Advice of Rs.40,47,390 was prepared by the said Branch which was signed by the appellant and the other authorized signatory Mst. Farhat Shahnaz but a cheque of Rs.52,00,000 bearing No.377955 was presented at Askari Commercial Bank which was cleared on the second advice of the same dated 6-62006. An amount of Rs.92,47,390 was shown in the advice with forged signature of Mst. Farhat Shahnaz and the appellant and the said amount was paid to an account holder of Askari Commercial Bank, New Challi Branch in the name of Umer Shahzad Baig from the account which was already closed by Mst. Shahana Ameen. On 23-2-2006 a fraud of Rs.52,00,000 was committed and the appellant, who was the Bank Manager, filed a complaint before the FIA on the basis of which inquiry was conducted and finally F.I.R. Was recorded against the appellant as it transpired that the appellant put his signatures on second advice of Rs.92,47,390. According to the advice Rs.40,47,390 was not sufficient for clearance but the second advice of Rs.22,47,390 was sufficient for Rs.40,47,390 and that was cleared and the appellant was found guilty during the investigation and a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted, charge was framed and the prosecution produced evidence which has been relied upon by the learned trial Court and the Appellate Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, contends that there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of crime; that the main accused Umer Shahzad Baig in whose account the said amount was transferred is still fugitive from law; that second advice was not prepared by the appellant but bore his forged signature; that the appellant is the person who immediately reported the matter to the FIA authorities but the FIA with mala fide intention and ulterior motive had got registered the case against the appellant and involved him in the transactions; that the report of Hand Writing Expert has not been relied upon by the High Court and the said report was not produced before the trial Court; and that in such circumstances the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures and the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt, therefore, the appellant may be acquitted.
4. On the other hand learned Deputy Attorney-General has opposed this appeal on the ground that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt and the courts below have rightly relied upon the admissible evidence brought on record.
5. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, has produced sufficient evidence which connects him with the commission of crime. Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that the appellant was a Manager of the Bank at the time of incident. It is also admitted that the account of Mst. Shahana Ameen was closed on 23-2-2006. It is also admitted fact that transfer advice on the date of incident was prepared for clearance of cheque amounting to Rs.40,47,390 which was not sent and another advice for Rs.92,47,390 was sent to the Head Office for clearance.
Mst. Farhat Shahnaz, officer of the. Bank, had appeared as P.W.2 and had stated that the dispatched advice Exhs.4A-1 and 6/A have been signed by the appellant. During cross- examination no suggestion was put to the said witness that the appellant had not put his signatures on the said document and the signatures were forged one. Other P.Ws. Were also produced to prove this fact and it has been established on record that the said documents were sent to the Head Office and it could IA not be sent for clearance without the signatures of the appellant. We have also noticed that for which reason the High Court has given the following reasons:- "26. It is true that Handwriting Expert was not produced in the trial Court though his report was produced. It is also admitted position that no question whatsoever was asked regarding report of the Handwriting Expert when I.0. Was standing in the witness-box. No suggestions as to its genuineness and no suggestions as to it probative value was asked. However, since'- Handwriting Expert was not produced in the witness-box it would not be in the fitness of things to rely upon the evidence of Handwriting Expert, though the Handwriting Expert had categorically stated that signatures on Exh.4/B-I, (Q.1) are indeed, by the present appellant when compared with his admitted signatures. But even if evidence of the Handwriting Expert, is completely taken out of consideration and indeed the fact that the Handwriting Expert was not produced mandates that his report be taken out of consideration, there are series of circumstantial evidence which go against the present appellant. First he received the cheque-book containing 7 un-used cheques from account-holder who came to close the account. Second 4 months thereafter he visited the account-holder and asked her to return the cheque-book and the account-holder stated to him that she had already given him the cheque-book. Thirdly both the above aspects were clearly stated by the account-holder in her deposition and no question whatsoever was asked in her cross-examination in this regard. Fourthly, Mst. Farhat Shahnaz stated that after signing she handed over advice Exh.4/A-1 to the present appellant and present appellant sent (whatever he sent) to NIFT and lastly Muhammad Afzal stated that he did not receive Exh, 4/A-1 but he received Exh.4/B-1. All these aspects have remained un-shaken and unchallenged throughout."
' We are in agreement with the learned Division Bench of the High Court that the Handwriting Expert's report which was produced but the Handwriting Expert was not produced by the prosecution and the said report was excluded from consideration under section 510 of the Cr.P.C.
Which is reproduced hereunder:- "510. Report of Chemical Examiner, Serologist, etc. Any document purporting to be a report, under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government or any Serologist, finger-print expert or fire-arm expert appointed by Government, or of the Chief Chemist of the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation Limited, upon any, matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may, without calling him as a witness, be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code."
' The reports which were admissible in evidence per se included the Handwriting Expert report and the appellant has not filed any application for summoning the Handwriting Expert who had given the positive report about the signatures of the appellant on the disputed document. In such circumstances we find that report had gone unchallenged by the appellant which further supported the other evidence available on record. Even otherwise, it is a case of the appellant himself that he was Manager of the Bank and the advice was sent when he was Manager of the Bank and his signatures were on the said report but denies the signatures which fact has been established by the statements of Mst. Farhat Shahnaz and other witnesses and also supported by the Handwriting Expert's report. B Conduct of the appellant shows that it was not above board as the appellant had filed a complaint before the FIA authorities and had not disclosed that who was the accused, who had prepared this forged advice and was serving under him and who was party in preparation of the advice and had only mentioned the name of the main accused as Umer Shahzad Baig whose documents have been found forged one during inquiry. Thus, we find that the filing of complaint was to brush aside the real issue and to save his own skin instead of making details and giving the names of the officials subordinate to him responsible for the preparation of the advice who could have responsible for the huge loss to the Bank amounting to Rs.52,00,000.
7. In the above circumstances we find that both the courts below had formed an opinion and declared the appellant guilty of the offence on the basis of the evidence and the evidence on record fully supports the judgments of both the courts below: We do not find any illegality or improbability in the impugned judgment and no reason for interference in the impugned judgment. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under sections 409, 468, 471 and 477-A, P.P.C. Is maintained. However, keeping in view the circumstances of the case that the appellant remained in jail from 4-1-2007 to 30-6-2008 and from 14-4-2010 to 26-5-2012 and had already served out actual period of more than 3-1/2 years' R.I. And had also been dismissed from service, we find that the sentence already undergone by the appellant and the sentence in lieu of deposit of fine of Rs.30,00,000 will meet the ends of justice. With this modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed.