1. ' This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 10-4-1980 of Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Karachi, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 468, P.P.C. And section 471, P.P.C. And sentenced him to suffer R.I for three years and fine of Rs,5,000 under each section in default of payment of fine appellant has further to undergo R.I for six months. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. ' The case of the prosecution in brief is that appellant Mehmood Alam was Head Master of Teachers Training Institution, Karachi whereas his wife Mst.Shaheda was lady teacher in L.K. Zone Noor Manzil, School, Karachi. Appellant went to Educational Officer L.K. Zone Karachi, on 14-9-1977 he received cheque of Rs,432 being arrears of pay of his wife. The cheque was handed over to him on the authority letter of his wife. The signature of the appellant was obtained on the counterfoil of the cheque and also on the back of the cheque. Appellant's signature on the cheque was attested by Deputy Educational Officer on 19-9-1977. Miss Rehmat Sultana junior clerk in the Office of the Deputy Educational Officer prepared another cheque for Rs,1,303 in favour of one Rehmat and sent it to bank for encashment but the said cheque was dishonoured and returned with the endorsement that funds are not available. On enquiry it was found that the appellant instead of drawing Rs,432 drawn from bank Rs, 4,032. The matter about this forgery was referred to Anti- Corruption Police. The case was registered and after investigation the appellant was challaned and finally convicted.
3. ' At the trial prosecutio'n examined 9 witnesses in support of the case. P.W.1, Rehmat Sultana is a junior clerk in the office of Deputy Educational Officer L.K.M.C. Landhi, Karachi who handed over cheque for Rs,432 to the appellant, P.W.2, Miss Shamim Akhtar, Supervisor in L.K. Zone, Karachi is well conversant with the signature of the appellant and she has testified signature of appellant Mahmood Alam signed in the counter-foil and on its reverse of the cheque. P.W.3, Ahmedullah Khan received report from the Lady Educational Supervisor and referred the matter to the Anti- Corruption Department for necessary action. P.W.4, has produced some documents which were previously signed by the appellant. P.W.5, Arif Rehman is a teacher. He is also well conversant with the signatures of the appellant and saw the cheque and other documents and stated that these are the signature of the appellant. P.W.6, Mohsin is officer of Habib Bank whose evidence is that appellant had drawn Rs, 4,032 from account No,508. P.W.7, Ghulam Abbas is D.S.P. And qualified Handwriting Expert. He has deposed that signatures on the cheque and other documents are that of appellant. P.W.8, Mukhtiar Ahmed is an Additional City Magistrate in whose presence specimen signatures of the appellant were taken. P.W.9, Ishrat Yar Khan is Anti-Corruption Inspector who has investigated the case and finally challaned the appellant.
4. ' Appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has stated that he had not received cheque but an amount of Rs,432 was paid to him in cash. He has denied the signatures on the counterfoil as well as on the back of the cheque. His plea is that the witnesses have deposed against him at the instance of one Shamim Akhtar who was junior to him but promoted for which he filed petition, against Shamim Akhtar therefore he has been involved falsely.
5. ' Appellant in his defence examined Masood Husain Exh.43, Sabri Bibi Exh.44, Qazi Hussain Ahmed Exh.45, Zahoor Alam Exh.46, Haider An Exh.47, and Gui Hassan Shaikh Exh.49.
6. ' P.W.1, Rehmat Sultana has stated that she was junior clerk in the Office of Deputy Educational Officer. On 14-9-1977, appellant Mahmood Alam came and demanded arrears of his wife and on the basis of authority letter, she prepared a cheque for Rs,432 in the name of appellant and after obtaining signature of Mrs. Farida Ahsan disbursing officer, the cheque was handed over to him and she got his signature on counterfoil. .The cheque and counter-foil have been produced as Exh.4 and Exh.5. She made entries in the Register and obtained signature of appellant which is at Exh.6, on 19-9-1977. She prepared another cheque of Rs, 1,303 in favour of one Rehmatullah Incharge of Moinabad School and sent to bank which was dishonoured for want of funds and that cheque was returned back by the bank with endorsement. She produced cheque and Bank letter as Exh.7 and Exh.8. On verification it was found that appellant had drawn Rs, 4,032 instead of Rs, 432.
7. ' P.W.2, Miss Shamim Akhtar has stated that she is Education Suprevisor since 1973, and is familiar with handwriting of appellant as they are employees in Edcuation Department, She was informed about forgery by P.W.Rehmat Sultana and they alongwith Accountant went to the Bank and verified that appellant had drawn Rs,4,032 instead of Rs,432. Mrs. Farida Ahsan was on leave and she was incharge as Drawing and Disbursing Officer, therefore she made report to project co- ordinitOr Landhi Korangi Zone, Karachi which she produced as Exh.10. P.W.Ahmedullah has stated that on 29-9-1977 he was Deputy Chief Officer K.M.C. L.K.Zone, Karachi and on that day he received written report from Lady Education Supervisor/Officiating Deputy Educational Officer., He referred the matter to Anti-Corruption Department in writing alongwith the original report he received. He has produced his report Exh.12. P.W.4, Muhammad Mohsin stated that he is well conversant with the signatures of the appellant. He has produced bills and attendance sheets as Exh.15 to Exh.20, signed by appellant. P.W. Arif Rehman stated that he is teacher and appellant had remained his Head Master therefore he can identify his signatures and handwriting. He has produced peon Book Exh.13 and application Exh .22 of Mr.Usmani, teacher duly endorsed by appellant. P.W.8, Mukhtiar Ahmed was Additional City Magistrate. He has stated that he took specimen signatures and writings of the appellant, at the request of Inspector Ishrat Yar Khan and attested these documents which he produced as. Exhs.26, 27 and 28 P.W.7, Ghulam Abbas D.S.P., F.S.F has stated that he is qualified handwriting expert since 1965. He verified the documents with the specimen signature of the appellant and found that cheque and other documents produced bear the signatures of the appellant. He has given reasons for his opinion. P.W.6, Muhammad Mohsin was 2nd officer, Habib Bank Korangi Branch, Karachi. He has stated that Education Department had Account Number 508 in that Bank and on 26-9-1977 cheque Exh.4, amounting to Rs,4,032 was produced and payment was made to the appellant. P.W.9, Ishrat Ali was Anti- Corruption Inspector, Karachi. He registered the case and recorded the statement of the witnesses and secured documents and finally challaned the appellant. He has produced sanction Exh.41.
8. ' D.W.1, Masood Hussain stated that in his presence D.W. Rahmat Sultana gave Rs,432 in cash to appellant and she obtained his signature. D.W.2, Sabra Bibi has stated that she was peon in Head Mistress Primary School and she saw appellant in the office and on enquiry he told her that he had come to collect pay of his wife and she saw that P.W. Miss Rahmat Sultana paid cash to appellant.
9. The wife of appellant is her friend. D.W.2, Kazi Hussain Ahmad has stated that Deputy Educational Officer being disbursing officer makes cash payment to Head Master of the School which is distributed by them. The payment to the teacher is made in cash. D.W. Zaheer Ahmad has deposed that he is working as teacher since 1972 and used to receive his pay in cash. P.W.4, S.Hyder Ali Jeffery has produced certificate Exh.48, showing the Account No,805 did not pertain to K.M.C.
10. ' Mr.Jalaluddin Baloch learned Advocate for the appellant contended that appellant received cash and all documents including signatures of the appellant on counterfoil and cheque are forged and are not in his handwriting. He argued that appellant has been involved due to enmity.
11. ' Mr.Imam Bux Shaikh appearing on behalf of the State submitted that prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and there is documentary evidence against the appellant.
12. In this case P.Ws Rehmat Sultana, Miss Shamim Akhtar, Ghulam Abbas, Handwriting Expert and Mukhtiar Ahmed, Additional City Magistrate have not been cross-examined therefore their evidence has gone unchallenged with the result that signatures on cheques, counterfoil and other documents signed by the appellant have been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The other witnesses though cross-examined but their evidehce could not be shaken. As far as the evidence of defence witnesses is concerned their evidence can be brushed aside, with a simple reason that no suggestion have been advanced to prosecutions witness in cross about the presence of these witnesses at the time of receiving cheque or cash by the appellant. Further in statemen under section 342, Cr.P.C. Appellant has not mentioned anything about defence witnesses. He could have said that in presence of witnesses h received cash therefore evidence of the defence witnesses cannot help the appellant.
13. ' In view of the aforesaid reasons I find no merits in the appeal which is consequently dismissed.
14. I am inclined to consider the circumstances that this is an old case of 1977 therefore case of appellant could be considered for some leniency in sentence. Allegation is that he by way of forgery drawn Rs,4,032 instead of Rs,432 therefore he get benefit of Rs,3,600. He is a teacher and is stated to be in agony since last 7 years. He has lost the job. I am therefore of the view that his case could be considered for reduction of sentence.
15. I, therefore modify his sentence to already undergone but maintain fine of Rs,5,000 in each account or in default to undergo R.I for six months.
16. ' The appeal is dismissed with the above modification. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.