' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, whereby he on 16-9-1978 convicted Arshad Hussain appellant, under sections 468, 471 and 409, P.P.C. and sentenced him to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment on each count and also a fine of Rs, 10,000 in default whereof to further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under section 409, P.P.C. with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The appellant was tried alongwith Nisar Ahmad, co-accused who too was convicted under the same sections and awarded the same sentences. The appellant and the co-accused were working as Chowkidar and Food Inspector, Provincial Reserve Centre,Raiwind, respectively. The charge against them was that Nisar Ahmad co-accused, in collusion with the appellant dishonestly forged Bills Nos. 32/898 and 33/898, dated 20-6-1974 showing that 500 bags of wheat had been purchased through these bills from one Arshad Hussain a Zamindar of village Lodhrey whereas in fact no such transaction had taken place and the price thereof was misappropriated by them. The appellant and the co-accused denied charges and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Muhammad' Ashraf, Foodgrain Inspector (P.W.2) supported the allegations of forgery of bills by the appellant and the co-accused.
He stated that the name of grower, i.e, Arshad Hussain resident of village Lechery was given to him by Nisar Ahmad, co-accused. He identified the signatures of the appellant and Nisar Ahmad on bills Exhs. P.W.1/A/1 and P.W.1/A/2. Appellant had signed in his presence. He also stated that payment for both the bills was received by Arshad Hussain, appellant Sammi Khan, Food Inspector (P.W.1) produced Book No, 898 containing bill No, 32 Exh. P.W.1/A/1 and bill No, 33 Exh. P.W.1/A/2 showing the purchase of 200 bags and 100 bags of wheat against each bill from Arshad Hussain resident of village Lodhrey. He proved the signatures of the appellant on the bills. He further stated that Arshad Hussain, appellant, received payment against these bills under his signatures. S.I.
Karam Hussain (P.W.8) obtained the specimen signatures of the appellant Exh. P.B.1 to Exh. P.B.4 and sent the same to Handwriting Expert for comparison. Sheikh Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert (P.W.5) stated that these signatures were written by one and the same person. Hassan Din (P.W.4) stated that no person by name of Arshad Hussain even resided in village Lodhrey and that no wheat was purchased by the Food Department from that village in the year 1974-75. Rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. The appellant and the co-accused stated that the wheat was in fact purchased from Arshad Hussain of Lodhrey and as such there was no forgery and misappropriation. They produced 7 witnesses in their defence. Agha Talat Mahmood (D.W.1) stated that per voucher No, 17/4839, dated 20-6-1974, 300 bags of wheat were purchased by Nisar Ahmad, Food Inspector, who sent the same to Provincial Reserve Centre, Raiwind on 20-6-1974 and that out of these 300 bags, 200 bags were purchased from Arshad Hussain resident of village Lodhrey. Nawab (D.W.3), Ali Muhammad (D.W.4), Mana (D.W.5) and Gogi (D.W.6), the residents of village Lodhrey, stated that one Arshad Hussain did reside in village Lodhrey but after having sold his land he left abroad. Hafeez Ullah Butt, Handwriting Expert (D.W.2) stated that the questioned signatures of Arshad Hussain, appellant on bills when compared with his specimen signatures were found to be "not identical."
4. It may be noted here advantageously that Nisar Ahmad, co-accused in Criminal Appeal No, 800/78 filed by him against his conviction vide judgment impugned herein had not challenged his conviction at the time of hearing of his appeal. He simply requested for reduction in sentence. His conviction under section 468/471/409, P.P.C. was upheld but the sentence of imprisonment was altered into a sentence of fine.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution has failed to prove the commission of forgery and criminal misappropria tion by the appellant inasmuch as the Magistrate before whom specimen/ routine signatures were taken was not produced and that the statement of Sheikh Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert (P.W.5) stands successfully rebutted by the statement of Hafeez Ullah Butt, Handwriting Expert (D.W.2). Conversely, learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties with care and have not been able to persuade myself to agree with learned counsel for the appellant. I find that there is ample oral and documentary evidence on record to prove the commission of offences punishable under section 468/471/409, P.P.C. by the appellant and his co-accused.
' From the statements of Semi Khan (P.W.1), Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.2) and Sheikh Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert (P.W.5) and the documentary evidence Exhs. P.W.1/A/1 and P.W.1/A/2, I am convinced that prosecution hag proved allegations of forgery and criminal misappropriation against the appellant and his co-accused. The statement of Sheikh Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert stands corroborated by the evidence of Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.2). On the other hand the statement of Hafeez Ullah Butt, Handwriting Expert (D.W.2) does not find corroboration from any other evidence. The prosecution witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination. They have no enmity against the appellant. The learned counsel has failed to point put any material contradiction/discrepancy in the statements of prosecution with sees. Mere omission to produce Magistrate before whom the signatures of the appellant were obtained by S.I. Karam Hussain has no adverse effect upon the statements of the other prosecution witnesses. From the statement of S.I. KaraIn Hudtain it is very much proved that the signatures which were sent to Handwriting Expert for comparison war A of the appellant and none else. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut prosecution case and its evidence. Voucher referred to by D.W.1 Agha Talat Mahmood could easily be prepared at any time. The trial Court has given sound reasons for believing/disbelieving the evidence of the parties. For all these reasons I am of the view that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and as such no exception can be taken to the conviction recorded by the trial Court.
7. This brings me to the question of sentence. In the circumstances of the case that the sentence of co-accused Nisar Ahmed has already been altered from imprisonment to that of a fine; that the appellant has not only lost his service but also suffered agony of protracted trial and that the appellant was only a Chowkidar, I feel inclined t alter the nature of sentence of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment on each count to a fine of Rs, 2,500 (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) on each count. The fine of Rs, 10,000 already awarded by the trial Court is, however, maintained.
Resultantly, the appellant shall deposit Rs, 15,000 before the trial Court within two months, in default whereof he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 yeaRs, In case the fine is not deposited within time, the trial Court shall issue warrants for the arrest and detention of the appellant.
Sentence altered.