' This is an application for pre-arrest bail by Shahzad Mahmood. He was granted interim bail by this Court, as per its order, dated 16-3-1985. Today the case is fixed as a notice case after service of notice on the State as well as complainant bank.
2. Accused petitioner Shahzad Mahmood was Manager of Allied Bank Ltd., Aminpur Bazar Branch, Faisalabad in the year 1984. In F.I.R. No, 136/85 registered for offences under sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 477-A, P.P.C. Allegations of forgery and criminal breach of trust etc. Were made against him in relation to 4 accounts.
3. The first account, in regard to which such allegations were made, is account No, 304 of M/s. Mian Traders. The precise allegation is, that, as shown by deposit receipt, dated 15-12-1984, M/s. Mian Traders, Narrawala Chauk, Faisalabad, holder of said account No, 304, deposited a sum of Rs,14,000 on 15-12-1984 but the said sum was not put in the bank funds nor credited in the said account in the relevant ledger and had been misappropriated by the accused-petitioner. It is stated in the F.I.R. That when the accused who was then working in another branch of the bank was called by the succeeding Manager to explain the position, he not only confessed his guilt but also made good the loss from his own pocket. It is further stated that thereafter on 3-3-1985 he made confession in writing and sought pardon.
4. Haji Akhtar Husain, proprietor of Mian Traders, submitted the original deposit receipt No,152205, dated 15-12-1984, for the sum of Rs,14,000 alongwith written complaint to the then Manager. The Investigating Officer took these documents into possession and also photostat copy of cashier's log book, the deposit voucher relevant to the said deposit, photostat copies of ledger sheets relating to account No,304 of Mian Traders and account No, 900 of Shafiq Anjum. According to him after the said deposit, Nasir the receiving cashier, had made the entry of receipt of said sum of Rs,14,000 in his log book in account No,304 but when the credit voucher for said sum of Rs,14,000 went before the accused-petitioner, Shahzad Mahmood, he had overwritten the digital figure 900 as account number over account No,304 which originally stood written in the relevant place of the said deposit voucher and had also written the name of Shafiq Anjum in the space meant for the name of Account holder which had earlier been left vacant in the deposit voucher. He further submits that there is no credit entry of Rs,14,000 in the ledger sheet relating to account No,304 of Mian Traders but there exists a credit entry of said sum of Rs,14,000 of 15-12-1984 in the ledger account of Shafiq Anjum holding account No,900 in the said hank.
5. I have looked into all the said documents. The said original deposit receipt bears the signature of Nasir, receiving cashier, in token of his having received Rs,14,000 and signature of Hamid Hasan Dar, cashier who had been authorised to sign the said receipt, as second signatory. The said receipt clearly shows the account, in which said sum had been deposited, to be 304 and name of the account holder to be Mian Traders. However, the deposit voucher (which is only the other portion of pay-in-slip meant for bank record) shows a clear overwriting of account No,900 over the figure previously existing. It also shows the name of Shafiq Anjum having been written on it in the relevant space. Hamid Hasan Dar had made a statement before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. That he could identify the handwriting of the accused and that the altered/overwritten account No,900 and words 'Shafiq Anjum' in the said deposit voucher are in the hand of the accused. Cashier's log book shows that the entry of the receipt of sum of Rs,14,000 in respect of current account No,304 had correctly been recorded by the receiving cashier, Nasir, but no credit entry is available in the account of Mian Traders for the date 15-12-1984, in the relevant ledger sheet. The credit entry, dated 15-12-1984, for a sum of Rs,14,000 is, however, available in ledger sheet relating to account No,900 of Shafiq Anjum. The Investigating Officer states that Shafiq Anjum has not been able to produce before him any receipt showing deposit by bin in his account No,900 of a sum of Rs,14,000 on 15-12- 1984. Furthermore, Hamid Hasan Dar has also stated in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. The said credit entry of the sum of Rs,14,000 in ledger sheet relating to Account No,900 of Shafiq Anjum too is in the handwriting of the accused. On tentative assessment of this evidence available with the police, I am of the prima facie view that the accused-petitioner is guilty of offence under section 467/468, P.P.C. He also appears to have, while acting as public servant, used the said sum in violation of direction of banking law prescribing the mode in which the trust of the said sum to him as a Manager of the said bank was to be discharged and thus prima facie he is guilty of offence under section 409, P.P.C. Also.
6. I have also seen application of accused-petitioner Shahzad Mahmood, dated 2-3-1985 addressed to the Regional Manager, Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Faisalabad. In it he had stated that out of the money deposited by the account holders in their accounts in the bank, he had been taking different sums of money and giving the said sums to other customers of he bank as over drafts were not permitted and this was the only means to oblige them. He also submitted that he had done all this due to lack of understanding on his part and that since there was none except him to support his family, he may be forgiven. Prima facie, this application amounts to confession of guilt on his part. The contents of this confessional statement appear to corroborate the prosecution story that the sum of Rs,14,000 when received in the bank, had been credited by him in the account of Shafiq Anjum and in doing so he had made forgery in the record and had done all this dishonestly and fraudulently and had also committed the offence of criminal breach of trust while acting as a public servant.
7. The next account in which such allegations are made against the accused in the F.I.R. Is P.L.S. Saving Account No,187 of Muhammad Latif account holder. The actual accusation against the accused is that he had misappropriated the sum of Rs,1,00,000 which had been deposited by Muhammad Latif in his said account on 22-12-1984 against a proper receipt but which had neither been included in the bank cash nor credited in his said account in the ledger.
8. I have seen deposit receipt, dated 22-12-1984 in respect of deposit of this sum of rupees one lac in P.L.S. Account No,187 of Muhammad Latif, account holder. It appears to be signed by one officer of the bank only although in normal course, according to procedure and practice of banks, the said deposit receipt was to be signed by two officers. Muhammad Boota Naz and Hamid Hasan Dar have, in their respective police statements, dated 28-3-1985 and 31-3-1985, identified the said signature to be that of the accused and body writing on the said deposit receipt to be in the hand of the accused. Hamid Hasan Dar also stated that the accused destroyed the deposit voucher which was not available in the bank. The pass-book of the account holder relating to said account shows a sum of Rs,1,00,000 as having been deposited therein, on 28-12-1984 (actually 22-12-1984) against the initial of the accused-petitioner. Muhammad Latif has stated, in his police statement, that the accused had posted the credit entry of rupees one lac in his presence in his said pass- book. However, the copy of ledger sheet relating to P.L.S. Savings Account No, 187 taken into possession by the Police Officer does not show the credit entry of the said sum of Rs,1,00,000. Prima facie, therefore, the accused had misappropriated this sum too and had committed the offence of criminal breach of trust in his capacity as a public servant.
9. The third account in respect of which such allegations have been made against the accused- petitioner is Account No, 696 held by the same party namely Muhammad Latif. According to the said accountholder, he had a sum of Rs,2,05,000 at his credit in the said account, for which he held valid receipts, whereas in the account in the bank there was a balance of Rs,100 only and the remaining sum had been misappropriated by the accused. The said account-holder had filed a complaint with the Manager of the said branch of the Allied Bank. The Police Officer had taken into possession the deposit receipt, dated 5-8-1984 for a sum of Rs,1,00,000. The said two witnesses have stated in their police statements the the said receipt is in the hand of the accused and is signed by him. The said sum, however, is not shown credited in account No,696 of the account- holder in the ledger. The ledger shows that a sum of Rs,1,00,000 had been written without specification of any date but thereafter it had been deleted by drawing a line of cancellation over it and the earlier balance in the last column had been restored. This entry is also stated to be in the hand of the accused-petitioner. Prima facie, therefore, accused-petitioner is guilty of offence under sections 468 and 409, P.P.C. In this particular transaction of the said account also.
10. The Police Officer had also taken into possession receipt of the deposit of cheque No,WBE 7526137 for a sum of Rs,50,000 for collection from National Bank of Pakistan. The said cheque had been returned in collection twice with some objections. Accused Shahzad Mahmood is, however, alleged to have deleted the endorsement, made it into a bearer cheque and got the said sum in cash from the counter of the Habib Bank against the said cheque, as deposed to by the cashier of the Habib Bank Ltd. In his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. It was further alleged that accused- petitioner did not pay the said sum to or credit the same in the account of the account-holder and miss aped pirated the same. He thus appears to have committed the offences under sections 467 and 409 in this transaction too.
11. I think that it is not necessary for me to scrutinize all the transactions to make up entire sum of Rs,2,05,000 of said Muhammad Latif account-holder of account No,696. Consideration of the above two instances in respect of the said account, is prima facie sufficient to connect the accused- petitioner with the scheduled offences under sections 467, 468 and 409, P.P.C.
12. There is an allegation in respect of fourth account namely P.L.S. Savings Account No, 186 of Muhammad Akram also. Although in order to show that he deserves the concession of bail, an accused person is bound to show that in none of the many allegations in respect of the accounts enumerated in the F.I.R., there is reasonable ground to believe that he is guilty of any scheduled offence, this Court need not go into and consider evidence in regard to allegations made in all the accounts when it has appeared from some or even from one account or transaction that the accused stands connected with a scheduled offence. Therefore, on account of above observations made by me in relation to allegations in three other accounts. I think, I need not go into the allegations made in relation to this 4th account.
13. As seen above, there are reasonable grounds to believe that accused-petitioner is guilty of offences under sections 467, 468 and 409, P.P.C. There is a definite prohibition contained in subsection (6) of section 5 of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 (IX of 1984) aginst grant of bail to such persons.
14. This would have concluded the matter. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vociferously argued two other points and insists that the same should be taken note of and disposed of in this order. One of these is that there has been a long delay of three months in the lodging of the F.I.R. And therefore, the accused-petitioner should be granted bail. In my opinion, however, this ground is available to an accused person when F.I.R. Is based on an oral narration of facts of an occurrence by a complainant and on that ground there is probability of the complainant having made a false story by availing of the interregnum for deliberations for the purpose of introducing false material in the facts of the occurrence to make the case of accused fall within penal provisions of law or for the prupose of falsely roping in innocent persons. However, in the cases relating to forgeries and fraudulent withdrawals of money from the banks on the basis of forged documents, such a situation does not usually arise as normally such allegations are supported by the forged documents and other record of the bank against which no charge of concoction of a false story by officers of the bank can be laid. Furthermore, offences of forgeries in the bank record and fraudulent withdrawals of sums from the banks based on froged documents are committed secretively. There is normally no eye-witness of the occurrence who may lodge an F.I.R. Promptly. The said offences are not detected immediately. They come to light on complaints made by the account-holders etc. Or on report by the Manager/Auditor in routine checking of the bank record. Naturally this takes some time. I do not, therefore, think that mere delay in lodging of the F.I.R. In these cases is of any material consequence to the accused. The delay of three months in lodging F.I.R. In the present case is, therefore, of no avail to the accused.
15. The next point on which great emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioner is that F.I.R. Was lodged after prior investigation by the bank authorities and therefore, no sanctity can be Attached to the said F.I.R. And for that reason accused-petitioner ought to be given the concession of bail. I have considered this point too but am afraid I cannot accept the same.
The dictum that an F.I.R. Which has been recorded after prior investigation by the police on the spot has no sanctity in the eye of law is based upon the probability of the police having mixed, during prior investigation on the spot, of falsehood with truth to make up lacunas or gaps in the prosecution story or made a wholly false story in order to implicate the accused falsely. It does not appear to be applicable to the case of forgery in the bank documents and misappropriation by an accused person of bank funds on the basis of said forged documents. The said forged documents usually contain the writing, initials or signatures of the accused person which do not permit the introduction by bank authorities of any falsehood in narration of events incriminating the accused.
Inquiry is necessary for the authorities of the bank to enable them to scrutinise different documents to pin point the person on whom according to the banking law, practice and procedure, responsibility can be laid for fraud, forgery, and embezzlement. In the present case too, the prior inquiry held in the bank was meant to find out whether the complaints made by Haji Akhtar Hussain of Mien Traders and Muhammad Latif etc. were justified or not and if justified who was responsible for forgeries in papers of the bank and defalcation of funds of the bank to enable the bank authorities to lodge an F.I.R. Against him. I do not think, therefore, that the accused is entitled to grant of concession of bail, merely because there has been prior inquiry in the bank to find out the real truth in the allegation made by the account-holders.
16. Since it has been held above that on present record there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of scheduled offences under sections 467, 468 and 409, P.P.C. And subsection
(6) of section 5 of Ordinance IX of 1984 lays a definite embargo on the powers of this Court to grant bail in such cases, I dismiss this application for pre-arrest bail and recall my previous order granting petitioner interim pre-arrest bail.