' The facts of the case are that Zahid Hussain was employed as Typist in Farid Gate Branch of U.B.L.
Bahawalpur. On account of paucity of cashiers in the branch, Faheem-ud-Din who was Manager of the said branch in 1977 asked him to work as a receiving cashier for collection of payments of electricity bills of WAPDA. He accordingly worked as a receiving cashier on 28-8-1977, 29-9-1977 and 23-10-1977 to 26-10-1977. According to the procedure available, the receiving cashier was to receive the amounts of electricity bills, issue receipts, therefore, and at the same time prepare scrolls, giving on them details of money received against each bill and was to work out on the scrolls total of all the sums received by him for transferring the said total sums to the account of WAPDA. The accused had accordingly received sums, issued receipts and prepared scrolls and had handed over totals of sums to Munazar Hussain who prepared vouchers whereby said total sums were transferred to the account of WAPDA. However, the Zonal Chief received from WAPDA letter No,3646, dated 5-11-1977, Exh.P.W.1/1, wherein it was alleged that a sum of Rs,6,216.70 on account of electricity bills collected, from 28-9-1977 and 29-9-1977 had not been credited in WAPDA collection account. Thereafter the said Zonal Chief received from WAPDA letter No,3884, dated 6-12-1977, Exh.D.C. Informing him that number of amounts of electricity bills, totalling a sum of Rs,2,400 had been credited less in the WAPDA collection main account at Lahore during October, 1977 by Farid Gate Branch U.B.L., Bahawalpur. The Zonal Chief then appointed two Senior Officers to make an inquiry into the matter. The said two officers did so and came to the conclusion that the accused had embezzled the said amounts. S.M. Haroon, Second Vice-President gave to the accused notice, dated 28-11-1977, Exh.D.B., requiring him to deposit in the bank the sum of Rs,8,616.70 embezzled by him and explain the reasons for defrauding the bank and causing wrongful gain to himself. The said notice recited that the accused had been receiving full amount of WAPDA bills and issuing receipts under his own signatures to the consumers for the entire amounts received by him but the amounts so received by him were either not entered by him in WAPDA scrolls or less recorded by him so that it could not be traced out at the time of surrendering the cash to the receiving cashier that the cash being received was short (as the said cash used to be equal to the amount shown in the total made at the end). It was also described in the said notice that after depositing the cash as per totals given on the said scrolls, prepared by him, the accused in order to cover the offence, managed to make alterations in the said scrolls in his own handwriting by either changing the figures already mentioned therein or by adding the bill amounts misappropriated by him without disturbing the totals on each of the scrolls. It appears that after proceedings taken against the accused, after this notice, he was dismissed from the service of bank.
2. In regard to criminal offences committed by accused Zahid Hussain in the above circumstances Faheem-ud-Din made complaint, dated 23-1-1978 Exh.P.W.1(2 to the S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali, Bahawalpur for registration of a case against the accused. He alleged therein that the accused had committed criminal breach of trust, forgery and embezzlement of bank's money to the extent of Rs,8,616.70 the details of which he gave in the said complaint. He also stated in the said complaint that the accused used to receive money from the electricity consumers and issue them receipts for the same and in some cases he did not make any entry in the bank record to show the money received by him and in other cases he entered less amounts in the bank record than the amounts actually received by him from the consumers. He also alleged that accused had tampered with the record of the bank in an attempt to conciliate the entries so as to wipe out the traces of embezzlement made by him. On the basis of this complaint, F.I.R. Exh.P.W.4/2, was registered in Police Station Kotwali, Bahawalpur, for offences under sections 409, 467 and 468, Pakistan Penal Code.
3. On 26-1-1978, the investigating officer, Muhammad Hussain, A .S.I. Police Post Shakarpuri Gate, Bahawalpur, went to the spot where the Manager Faheem-ud-Din produced before him 14 sheets of receipts, Exh.P.W.1/72 to 85 (each sheet consisting of 4 receipts) issued by the accused, WAPDA scrolls, Exh.P.W.1/3 to 65 and original vouchers Exh.P.W.1/66 to 71 whereby the sums of the total amounts given on the said scrolls were credited in the account of WAPDA. The said documents were taken into possession by the said investigating officer by virtue of seizure memo. Exh.P .W:1/86.
4. Trial in this case took place in the Court of the Special Judge (Central), where charge under three heads had been framed against the accused. The third head is in respect of commission by the accused of offence under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which is not triable by this Court. However, the first head of the charge is that during September/October, 1977, while posted as Typist United Bank Ltd., Farid Gate Branch, Bahawalpur, from 28-9-1977 to 26-10-1977, the accused was entrusted with the duties of collection, of electricity bills and he realized Rs,9,379.85 as electricity charges and dishonestly showed the said amount as Rs,763.15 in the bank record and thereby committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating Rs,8,616.15 and thus committed the offence under section 409, P.P.C. The second head of the charge was that accused being a public servant prepared incorrect and false record knowing the same to be false inasmuch as he showed realization of full amount on the consumer bills but showed less amount in the bank record in order to deceive the bank authorities and WAPDA and thereby committed offences under section 420/471/218, P.P.C. The offences under sections 420 and 218, P.P.C. Are not triable by this Court and, therefore, no comments would be made whether or not the accused had committed these offences. So far as offence under section 471, P.P.C. Is concerned, it seems to be the result of typographical mistake inasmuch as, from the description of facts in this head of the charge, offence under section 477-A appears to be attracted and, therefore, it would be scrutinized whether on evidence on record, the accused had committed this offence or not.
5. At the trial 5 prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Faheem-ud-Din, Manager, U.B.L. Farid Gate Branch, Bahawalpur, appeared as P.W. 1, Munazar Hussain Ansari who was then working as Head Cashier in the Farid Gate Branch of the U.B.L. Appeared as P.W.2, Kaseem-ud-Din, officer of the said branch during that period, appeared as P .W.3, Muhammad Hussain A A.S.I. Appeared as --P.W.4, and Wilayat Hussain A .S.I. Appeared as P.W.5. P, Ws. Tahir Ajmal, Fayyazullah Khan and M. Zafar were given up by the Prosecuting Inspector as having been won over by the accused and Sarfraz Ahmad S.I. Was given up as unnecessary. On 31-5-1981, learned Special Judge (Central) closed evidence of Malik Muhammad Hasan who had not been produced by the prosecution without showing any sufficient cause. Thereafter statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded. He accepted that he was posted as Typist in the U.B.L. Farid Gate Branch, Bahawalpur, in the year 1977. He also conceded that he was entrusted with the duty of collection of electricity bills during the period from- 28-9-1977 to 26-10-1977. He also accepted that he had issued receipts Exh. P.W.1/72 to Exh.P.W.1/85. He also admitted that he had prepared bank scrolls Exh. P.W.1/3 to P.W. 1/65 in his own hand but stated he had prepared them in accordance with the receipts issued by him to the consumers. He also denied that on 28-9-1977, 29-9-1977 and during the period from 23-10-1977 to 26-10-1977 he had realized a sum of Rs,9,379.85 as electricity charges from the consumers and had dishonestly shown the said sum as Rs,763.15 in the mbank scroll and embezzled a sum of Rs,8,616.70. He alleged that the totals of the said scrolls had not been made by him. As regards the question whether he had made alterations subsequently in the scrolls by adding new digits or by adding sums which did not stand written when the money as shown in the totals given on the scroll was surrendered to the Head Cashier, his reply was that it was incorrect. He explained that he was assigned this job with the understanding that the cumulative amount received from the consumers will be sorted out by the Head Cashier and the officer and they will also make out the totals of the scrolls and it was incorrect to blame him for any addition and alteration or embezzlement. To the question whether it was a fact he had handed over the total cash, as given in totals of scrolls, to P.W.2. Munazar Hussain Ansari, he replied that Munazar Hussain Ansari used to collect all the cash from him for sorting out and totaling the scrolls. As far as the question as to why this case had been made against him he stated that this case has been made at the instance of the then Zonal Head, Mr. Haroon Shah, whose policies and other anti-staff activities he had been condemning through circulars in his capacity as Chief Organizer of U.B.L. Employees Union, Bahawalpur, and since almost all the P.Ws. Except the Investigating Officer were his direct subordinates, they had made this case against him and had got from the said Zonal Chief benefits of different types. He also stated that he was innocent and would produce defence.
6. The accused, however, absented himself from the Court of the Special Judge (Central), without producing any defence. On account of the absence of the accused, the Special Judge (Central), cancelled his bail and sent notice to his surety and also issued non-bailable warrant of his arrest.
At this stage, on account of promulgation of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts)
Ordinance, 1984 (IX of 1984), on 23rd February, 1984, this case was transferred to this Court.
7. This Court issued non-bailable warrant of arrest of the accused.The accused, however, never appeared. The non-bailable 'warrant of his arrest was returned with the report that he had gone to Canada and was living there. On the next date, Ulfat Hussain F.C. No,189. P.S. Kotwali, Bahawalpur, process server, was examined alongwith Ijaz Hussain alias Waqar, real brother of accused Zahid Hussain. The process server proved his report while Ijaz Hussain who had also made report on the back of the said warrant appeared and stated that Zahid Hussain accused who was his elder brother had left his home some years ago telling them that he was going to Karachi on a personal errand and from there he had left for Canada. On the basis of the said two statements, I found that it stood established that the accused had gone to Canada and his brother Ijaz or his family had absolutely no information of his whereabouts in Canada and it was on that account clear that the accused had intentionally avoided to appear in this Court in order to impede the course of justice.
I, therefore, made an order, on 19-9-1985 for proceeding against him in absentia under subsection
(4) of section 5 of the said Ordinance. Thus, there is no defence evidence and the decision is to be made on the basis of the record as at present available.
8. I have heard arguments of learned Special Prosecutor, Ch. Ghulam Sarwar. I have also gone through the record minutely.
9. Recovery of documents, WAPDA scrolls Exh. P.W. 1/4 to 65 and original vouchers Exh.P.W.1/66 to 71 by virtue of which the sums given in the final total in the scrolls were credited in the account of WAPDA and receipts Exh.P.W. 1/72 to 85 stand proved by the statements of Faheem-ud-Din, P.W.1, and Muhammad Hussain, Investigating Officer, P.W.4.
10. The factum of the accused having received sums of money in respect of WAPDA electricity bills and having issued receipts of full amounts to the consumers and having made entries of receipts of each sum in the scrolls in his own hand stands proved by the evidence of P.W.1, Faheem-ud-Din, Manager, P.W.2 Munazar Hussain, Head Cashier and P.W.3 Kaseem-ud-Din, Officer in the said branch of the bank. Faheem-ud-Din had stated in his statement that he was posted on 1-9-1977 as Manager of Farid Gate Branch of U.B.L., Bahawalpur, and due to shortage of cashiers, he had asked Zahid Hussain who was then working as Typist to work as Cashier to receive the amounts of electricity bills of WAPDA from the consumers and that the accused had upon that carried out that work on his request. It is clear that the work as a receiving cashier for collection of WAPDA bills included in it the work of making two copies of the scrolls, one of which is kept in the bank record and the other is sent to WAPDA to apprise them of the amount received from each consumer and , the: total amount collected by the bank on behalf of WAPDA on each day. In latter part of his statement when the said Manager stated that the accused had made additions and changed entries in the scrolls, he also impliedly stated that the original entries in the scrolls as well as those made by him later by way of interpolation were in the handwriting of the accused. P.W.2 Munazar Hussain, however, who was then acting as Head Cashier in Farid Gate Branch. Of U.B.L., Bahawalpur, clearly stated that the accused had been deputed to work as cashier' to receive the electricity bills on 28-9-1977, 29-9-1977 and for the period from 23-10-1977 to 26-10-1977 and he received the amounts and issued receipts to the customers and also prepared bank scrolls and then handed over the total .Cash according to the bank scroll to him where after he used to prepare, WAPDA credit vouchers, Kaseem-ud-Din who was working in the said branch as officer during the relevant period, stated in his statement as P.W.3 that on 28-9-1977, 29-9-1977 and during the period from 23-10-1977 to 26-10-1977, accused Zahid Hussain was deputed to collect payments of WAPDA bills in the bank and that the accused had received amounts of the bills from the consumers and issued receipts to them in lieu of the payments and prepared scrolls and handed over the total amounts to the Head Cashier on the close of the working hours. Apart from the statements of said three witnesses, the accused himself had conceded in his statement, under section 342, Cr.P.C., that he had worked as a cashier for the said dates to receive payment of electricity bills and had issued receipts to the consumers and had made entries of receipt of said sums of money in the scrolls. There is, therefore, no doubt now that the accused had received payments of electricity bills and had issued to consumers receipts for said sums and had prepared scrolls in his own hand.
11. The accused had, however, as shown earlier, stated in his statement, under section 342, Cr.P.C., that so far as totals of scrolls are concerned, he had not made them and that he had been assigned the job of a cashier on the understanding that cumulative amount received from consumers will be sorted out by the Head Cashier and the total of the scrolls shall also be made by him and Munazar Hussain used to collect all the cash from him for sorting out and totalling the scrolls. This plea appears on the face of it to be rediculous. When an employee of a bank is put on the job of receiving cash, it is he who has to count the cash received by him and it is he who had to work out the total of the sums received by him and balance the same with the sum actually available with him and nobody else in the bank can be assigned the duty of making totals of payment shown to have been received on scrolls and counting cash received by another person and balancing it with the said total because responsibility of making up any shortfall in the receipt of the sums cannot be put on the shoulders of the said other person. This is the man actually on the job who has to do this and hand over the cash in accordance with totals found on the scroll to the Head Cashier. It is wholly, incredible that duty of counting of cash received by the accused was given to Munazar Hussain, P.W.2, and accused was shorn of all responsibility of depositing cash consistent with true total of the scrolls. The accused has not produced any defence evidence to prove the said circumstance. The said plea was neither put in cross-examination to Faheem-ud- Din, Manager, who had put the accused on that assignment and was the actual person concerned with acceptance or rejection of any condition which may have been put forward by the accused- typist to work as a cashier nor to C Kaseem-ud-Din, officer, who was the next man in the branch.
Even a suggestion to that effect was not given to either of the two in cross-examination. It is true that P.W.2, Munazar Hussain Ansari had admitted that totals of scrolls Exh.P.W.1/14 to P.W.1/24, Exh.P.W.1/44, Exh.P.W.1/47 and Exh.P.W.1/51 were made by him and were in his handwriting but he had stated that he had done so in order to assist the accused at his request because he was a new hand. From this circumstance, it cannot be concluded that the said witness had made wrong totals of said scrolls or that he had made totals of other scrolls as well. The statement of this witness to the effect that accused used to prepare the scrolls and then used to hand over the total cash according to the bank scroll to him and entries in the scrolls except totals of a few scrolls mentioned above were all in the handwriting of the accused does not stand discredited in cross- examination and has to be given full effect to. No suggestion was given to this witness that totals of all the scrolls had been made by him and totals of scrolls other than those on which he had admittedly made totals were not in the handwriting of the accused. No enmity towards the accused has been suggested to this witness. It, therefore, stands proved to the hilt that all the scrolls except the totals of scrolls marked as Exh. P.W.1/4 to 24, 1/44, 1/47 and 1/51 had completely been made by the accused in his own handwriting.
12. So far as the totals of Exh.P.W.1/14 to 24, 1/44, 1/47 and 1/51 are concerned, it is correct that Munazar Hussain Ansari, P.W.2, had stated that he had made the said totals but these totals depended for their correctness on the entries made by the accused in the scrolls. It is clear that Munazar Hussain Ansari had made these totals consistent with the entries of the cash amount which had been entered by the accused in the scroll as having been received by him from each consumer. As already stated, no enmity of this witness towards the accused has either been established or even suggested by the accused in cross-examination of this witness. Therefore, this witness had no motive to make false totals which were not consistent with the entries of the amount shown by the accused as having been received by him.
13. At this stage, it is necessary to consider the plea of the accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. That the P.Ws. Had made this false case against him at the instance of the Zonal Chief, Haroon Shah (whose policies and anti-staff activities he had been condemning through circulars in his capacity of Chief Organizer of U.B.L. Employees Union of Bahawalpur) in order to get benefit from the said Zonal Chief. In evidence, however, P.W.1 Faheem-ud-Din expressed his ignorance in respect of the accused being the Chief Organizer of the said union or his having issued circulars against the Zonal Chief, Haroon Shah. P.W.2, Munazar Hussain Ansari admitted that the accused was Chief Organizer of the said union but he denied any knowledge that the accused had issued any circular against the policy of Zonal Head. He also denied that he had in collusion with Zonal Officers committed fraud in the bank and had involved the accused falsely. So far as Kaseem-ud- Din P.W.3 is concerned, although he stated that he knew (at the time of making statement) that accused was Chief Organizer of the said union, he denied that he had made false case against the accused in collusion with Zonal Chief in order to get promotion. Thus, the accused failed to elicit anything from the said witnesses in support of his plea. The factum of issuance by the accused of a circular against the Zonal Head was not put to P.W.3, while P.Ws. 1 and 2 denied any knowledge of any such circular having been issued by the accused against the Zonal Chief. In these circumstances it was incumbent upon the accused to have produced any such circular in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. But he did not produce any in order to show that it contained any material against the Zonal Head as a result of which the said Zonal Head had felt impelled to take up cudgels against him. Failure of the accused to produce the same, takes away the very basis of the said plea of the accused. There is thus nothing to discredit the averments made by the said P.Ws. In their statements.
14. It is, therefore, proved that the totals of all the scrolls had been made either in the hand of the accused or in the hand of P.W.2 which were consistent with the entries made in the scrolls themselves and were correct.
15. WAPDA scrolls, as are available on the record of the case at this time, show entries of full amounts of electricity bills entered in the scrolls. Therefore, the question which now arises is as to whether the disputed digits which made up full sums were originally not available in the scrolls and had been later added in the scrolls by way of interpolation or not. To resolve this question we have first to see whether the totals in the said scrolls had remained intact all along. The factum of totals as originally made, having remained unhampered is proved by the circumstances of correspondence of the said totals with the credit vouchers Exh.P.W.1/66 to 71 prepared in the same branch of the bank in favour of WAPDA in respect of receipt of sums of money by the accused as collection of payments towards electricity bills. This circumstance taken along with the circumstances of all the totals of said scrolls having been correctly made in accordance with entries of payments received appear to show entries of additions of full-fledged sums in the scrolls or addition of digits to the sums already given so as to turn them into larger sums were made by the accused at a later time. If the said entries had been originally there, the totals of scrolls would have undoubtedly been different. P. W.1 has also stated in his statement that in the bank scroll Exh.P.W.1/7 at serial No,90 the accused had changed the entry from Rs,3.05 to Rs,303.05; in Exh.P.W.1/9 at serial No,123 the accused changed Rs,59.42 to Rs,459.42; in Exh.P.W.13 in between serial No,187 and 188 the accused inserted Rs,67.84; in Exh.P.W.1/21 at serial No,171 Rs,490.92 were written later on by the accused and is not included in the total; in Exh.P.W.1/23 at serial No,203 amount of Rs,672.84 was written later on by the accused and was not included in the grand total; at serial No,227 in the same scroll amount of Rs,879:10 was also added later on by the accused and was not included in the total; in Exh.1/30 at serial No,106 amount was written as Rs,68/66 but he changed it to Rs,468.66; in the bank scroll Exh.P.W.1/31 at serial No,116 the amount was Rs,69.72 but he changed it to Rs,469.42; in Exh.P.W.1/43 at serial No,163 amount of Rs,95.29 was changed to Rs,295.29 by the accused; in Exh.P.W.1/34 at serial No,171 amount of Rs,57.18 was changed to Rs,757.1 by the accused and at serial No,179 amount of Rs,34.72 was changed to Rs,334.72 by the accused; Exh.P.W.3/5 at serial No,194 amount of Rs,30/10 was changed to Rs,230.10 by the accused; in Exh.P.W.1/38 at serial No,259 amount of Rs,43.96 was changed to Rs,643.96 by the accused; in Exh.P.W.1/43 at serial No,25 amount of Rs,18.93 was changed to Rs,318.94 by the accused; iq Exh.P.W.1/47 at serial No,49 amount of .Rs 32 35 was changed to Rs,132.35 by the accused; in Exh.P.W.1/48 at serial No,77 the accused changed Rs,16.65 to Rs,116.65; Exh.P.W.1/48 at serial No,103 amount of Rs,38.96 was changed into Rs,538.96 by the accused; Exh.P.W.1/53 at serial No,28 the accused changed the amount of Rs,32.76 to Rs,632.76; in Exh.P.W.1/59 at serial No,67 amount of Rs,71.58 was changed into Rs,471.58; in Exh.P.W.1/60 at serial No,83 amount of Rs,50.06 was changed into Rs,250.06; in Exh.P.W.63 at serial No,134 amount of Rs,39.66 was changed to Rs,239.66. From the above circumstances and from the above evidence, it stands proved that the original amounts shown in some entries of the scrolls were less than actually payable and in certain case, entries of sums received had not been made at all and thus the sums by which payment fell short were misappropriated by the accused but subsequently in order to screen himself from the offence dishonestly and fraudulently the accused made entries by adding absolutely new sums in the scroll or increasing the original sums written in the scrolls to make the scrolls consistent with payment actually received by him for which he had issued receipts. This the accused did sometime after handing over by him of cash to Munazar Hussain Ansari who could not at that time discover that the sum being given to him was short of actual sum received by the accused.
16. The entrustment of sums can be proved by direct evidence of persons who entrust the sums of a person or by indirect evidence of proof of receipts issued by a person to whom sums are entrusted as well as evidence of persons who saw him working to receive the sums of money. In the present case, the factum of entrustment of sums to the accused has been established not only by statements of P. Wes. 1 to 3 but also by the admission of the accused that he had received the amounts and issued receipts therefor. Therefore, the entrustment of original sums as given in receipts to the accused stands established on record.
17. However, all the receipts mentioned in the F.I.R. Have not been produced on record and the sum of money the accused had to account for depends upon the proof of receipts put in evidence on record. Five receipts of 28-9-1977 as detailed in the complaint written by the Manager or the F.I.R.
And receipt No,4546, dated 2-10-1977 has neither been submitted in the case nor proved on record as the same are not available in sheets Exh.P.W.1/72 to P.W.1/85. After excluding these from consideration and taken into consideration the receipts contained in Exh.P.W.1/72 to Exh.P.W.1/85, the amount proved to have been realized by the accused is Rs,5,428.70 and the total amount proved to have been shown in the scroll is Rs,628.70 and amount taken away from the bank is a sum of Rs,4,800.00. The following table makes things clear:- {{TABLE}} Date Exhibit Amount Amount A mou of the received originally deficie receipt as per shown in receipt the scroll 29-9-77 29-9-77 29-9-77 29-9-77 29-9-77 29-9-77 29-9-77 23-10-77 24-10-77 24-10-77 24-10-77 25-10-77 26-10-77 29-10-77 P.W.1/72 P.W.1/73 P.W.1/74 P.W.1/75 P.W,1/76 P.W.1/77 P.W.1/79 P.W.1/78 P . W.1/83 P.W.1/84 P.W.1/85 P.W.1/80 P.W.1/81 P.W.1/82 468.66 469.42 295.29 757.18 334.72_ 230.10 643.96 318.93 132.35 116.65 538.96 632.76 250.06 239.66 68.66 69.42 95.29 57.18 34.72 30.10 43.96 18.93 32.35 .
16.65 38.96 32.76 50.06 39.66 Total 5428.70 628.70 4,800.0 ' Thus, a sum of Rs,4,800 has been dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated by the accused in his capacity as a public servart within the meaning of said word as defined in explanation to section 161, P.P.C. He is thus guilty of offence under section 409, P.P.C Accordingly I convict him of the said offence.
18. It As clear from the evidence of P.W..2 Munazar Hussain and P.W.1 Faheem-ud-Din as well as statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. That the original entries of lesser sums in scrolls were in the hand of the accused and the subsequent-entries whereby the deficiency in the amounts was made good were also in the hand of th accused.
19. As regards the original act of the accused in omitting to give full sums in the scrolls with intent to defraud while acting in his capacity as the servant of the bank, he committed the offence under section 477-A, P.P.C. And I convict him accordingly.
20. As regards the later act of the accused in adding a digit or two to make up the deficiency in the earlier figures of sums put by him originally in the scroll, he without any lawful authority, dishonestly and fraudulently altered material parts of the scrolls and thus made a false document within the meaning of said word as given in section 464, P.P.C. He did so with the intention to cheat and thus committed the offence under section 468, P.P.C. However, since in the charge this offence was not included, I am not inclined to convict and punish the accused for the said offence.
21. For offence under section 409, P.P.C., as amended by subsections (2) and (3) of section 6 of the Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. I sentence the accused to rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and a fine of Rs,12,000 and in default of payment of the same to R.I. For a further period of three years. For offence under section 477-A, P.P.C. I sentence the accused to R.I.
For 6 years and a fine of Rs,10,000 and in default of payment of said fine to further R.I. For 1(1/2) years. The sentences shall be consecutive and the sentence for offence under section 477-A, P.P.C.
Shall begin after the expiration of sentence for offence under section 409, P.P.C. The accused shall, however, be entitled under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To deduction from the term of his sentence the period he has remained in the jail as an under-trial prisoner.
' The accused is not present. This sentence has been announced in his absence. Let, therefore, a copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur, directing him to apprehend and arrest the accused as and when he comes back from America and/or arrange that he serves the sentence passed by this Court.
Accused convicted.