The appellant was working as Savings Bank Clerk at Talagang Sub-Post Office in the year 1956. He was tried by Special Judge (Central) of charges under, sections 409, 420 and 468, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the revention of Corruption Act. He was convicted under section 420, P. P. C. And under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to one year's R. I. On each count. In addition he was also fined Rs. 6,000 or in default of its payment to undergo R. I. For 1-- years under section 420, P. P. C. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Briefly the prosecution story is that one Mian Mohammad (P. W. 12) had his Savings Bank Account No. 67133 with the Sub-Post Office. He was issued a Pass Book (Exh. P: A). The account was opened by him on 5th August 1953. He operated upon, the account up to 1955 arid thereafter left for Kuwait leaving his Pass Book with his wife. He did not visit, the country in 1956. The allegation against the- appellant is that he knew the absence of Mian Mohammad from the country and withdrew from his saving bank account a sum of Rs. 2,000 on 11th February 1956 under a forged withdrawal application (Exh. P. B). On 9th April 1956, he again withdrew Rs. 2,000 under a forged application (Exh. P. C.) and on 25th June 1956 another sum of Rs. 650 was withdrawn on a forged application.
(Exh. P. D). He is alleged to have absconded from his duty in August 1957 when he was posted as Sub-Postmaster at Kot Sarang Sub-Post Office. The department ordered a check up of the accounts dealt with by the appellant. The various accounts handled by the appellant were checked up in pursuance of the order by the relevant Post Office Authority, namely, Mr. Hamid Hassan (P. W. 1) Inspector, Post Offices, Pindi Gheb.
3. During the enquiry Mian Mohammad's wife produced the pass book of her husband (Exh. P. A.) and it was found that no such withdrawals were entered in it as the depositor was away from Pakistan. The matter was reported to Police Station Talagang by Hamid Hassan (P. W. 1) and the report (Exh. P. G.) was lodged on 8th September 1957. Formal F. I. R. Was registered by the Talagang Police Station and the matter was enquired into by Mohammad Shafi Sub-Inspector (P. W. 13). The appellant was produced before Mr. Mohammad Siddique, Resident Magistrate (P. W. 7) on 22nd February 1958 for obtain--ing his 'specimen signatures and writing. The accused, however, refused to give specimen writings to the Magistrate and made statement Exh. P. O. The prosecution, therefore, had to produce his routine writings kept in the Post Office (Exhs. P. E., P. F./1 and P.J.) which were sent for comparison with the writings of the tree withdrawal forms (Exh. P. B., Exh. P. C. And Exh.
P. D.) to Mr. Mohammad Ali Anwar Nomani, Handwriting Expert .(P. W. 6) for obtaining his opinion.
The prosecution was sanctioned by the competent authority and the trial was held.
4. At the trial prosecution produced Hamid Hassan Inspector, Post Offices, Shakargarh (P. W. 1), Iqrarullah Warsi Supervisor, Post Office, Campbellpur (P. W. 2), Ala Mohammad Deputy Post Master, Campbellpur (P. W 3), Miraj Ali Butt Clerk Post Office, Campbellpur (P. W. 4) Wall. Dad Clerk Post Office, Abbottabad (P. W. 5), Muhammad Ali Anwar Nomani (P. W. 6), Muhammad Siddique Resident Magistrate (P. W. 7), Ali Muhammad Deputy Post Master, Gujrat (P. W. 8), Muhammad Gulzar Sub--Post Master (P. W. 9), Sher Abbas (P. W. 10) a treasurer in the Sub-Post Office Talagang, Latif Ahmad Assistant Director investigation, A. M. G's Office, Lahore and Mian Muhammad the account holder in support of its case.
5. Mian Muhammad (P. W. 12) stated that he had opened S. B. Account at Talagang Post Office. In the year 1955 he left for Kuwait. He produced Pass Book (Exh. P. A). He deposed that he never withdrew any of the amounts mentioned above from his account. He denied of having presented the withdrawal forms. The prosecution has tried to prove that the accused had attested all the three withdrawal applications submitted in the Sub-Post Office and the opinion of the Handwriting Expert shows that these handwritings tally with the routine handwriting of the accused.
6. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. He admitted that he was posted as a S. B.
Accounts Clerk at Talagang Post Office, but he denied to have dealt with the with--drawal applications Exh. P. B., Exh. P. C. And Exh. P. D. He also denied that he ever identified the account holder on the back of the forms. The payment of the amounts he admitted to have made to the person who presented the forms after due sanction by the Deputy Post Master.
7. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether the appellant is responsible for the crime which is attributed to him. I am afraid that finding cannot be given in this appeal. The procedure prescribed for withdrawal of amount from the Sub-Post Offices is mentioned in rule 440 of the Post Office Manual, Volume VI while rule 443 deals with withdrawal at Sub-Post Offices. The appellant was admittedly working as Saving Bank Clerk at the Sub-Post Office at Talagang where Mr. Ali Muhammad (P. W. 8) was working as Sub-Postmaster at the relevant the. The appellant has not been convicted under sections 409 and 468, P. P. C. Although he was tried for those offences.
The allegation is that he has attested the memos. Of withdrawal (which are in his handwriting) and presented them under the rules to the Deputy Post Master referred to above, who permitted the withdrawals. Under the rules no withdrawal could be permitted without Pass Book. Since according to the prosecution the Pass Book of the account holder was not produced either no pass book was produced at the the of these withdrawals or a duplicate pass book was produced at that the. There is no evidence on the record to show that a duplicate pass book .Was issued to the account holder.
Moreover, it was obviously the duty of the Deputy Postmaster to have turned down the withdrawals the moment he had seen the attestation on 'the withdrawal memos made by the Saving Bank Clerk which is again a violation of the rule. Rule 25 of the "Rules for the Guidance of Depositors in Post Office Saving Banks" clearly envisages such a restriction. The accused being the paying officer was specifically prohibited to identify or attest the signatures of the person applying for withdrawal of the amount.
8. The opinion of the Handwriting Expert is of course a mere opinion and it cannot be considered as final word on they subject. Be that as it may, from the prosecution case it transpires that somebody else, namely, the Deputy Postmaster was either negligent or had the complicity in the crime and the sole responsi--bility cannot be thrusted on the shoulders of the appellant. Who are the persons involved in the crime, it is not the function of this Court to hold a roving enquiry. We have to decide the appeal on the record before us. 'The appellant might have been associated with the crime but the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against him. In this view of the matter the conviction of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted. His bail bond shall be cancelled.