1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--While petitioner was posted as an Accounts Clerk in Town Committee Kazi Ahmed, he was challaned and tried under sections 468, 471, 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for having forged a cheque for Rs.5,000 on United Bank Ltd., Kazi Ahmed, and for having cashed the same on 1-9-1977, and thereafter to have misappropriated the said amount. The crime was reported about one year later on 11-8-1978 by Muhammad Yousuf, Secretary, Town Committee Kazi Ahmed at the Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Nawabshah. According to the version of Muhammad Yousuf in the First Information Report he discovered the forgery on 15-6-1978 when he went to the above bank and a debit of Rs.5,000 on account of cheque No.537888 dated 1-9-1977 was brought to his notice.
2. The crucial witnesses produced by the prosecution at the trial were P.Ws. Muhammad Yousuf, Abdul Razzaq Mukhtiar kar, Muhammad Khan, officer of United Bank Ltd., Kazi Ahmed, Muhammad Sulemen who was the Administrator of Town Committee during the relevant period and P.W.
3. Ghulam Abbas the handwriting expert.
4. P.W. Muhammad Yousuf deposed that petitioner used to deal with cash and maintain cashbook.
5. The cheques used to be signed by the Mukhtiar kar, Secretary and Administrator of the Town Committee. He produced the counterfoil of the disputed cheque which was cancelled. The disputed cheque was written by petitioner in his own handwriting, and the signature of the Mukhtiar kar and Administrator and his signature on the cheque, according to him, were forged. He also produced the cash book which was maintained by petitioner and it contained no entry regarding the forged cheque of Rs.5,000. In the cross-examination he stated that the cheque book used to be kept by the Administrator in lock and key. In his report dated 15-6-1978 he had stated that "it appears that the Bank authorities have passed the cheque with false signatures, and this fraud has been committed in collusion with Khuda Bux clerk (petitioner)." He further stated in this report that he had recovered Rs.5,560/- from petitioner and deposited the amount in the account of the Town Committee.
6. P.W. Abdur Razzak was the taluka Mukhtiar kar at the time. He deposed that every cheque issued by the Town Committee used to be countersigned by him. When confronted with his signatures on the disputed cheque, he disclaimed it and stated that it was a forgery.
7. P.W. Muhammad Khan was Second Officer of the United Bank Ltd., Kazi Ahmed during the relevant period, and he deposed that petitioner had brought the cheque in question and got it cashed from the staff. He disowned his own signature on the cheque and stated that it was a forgery. According to him, his signature on the cheque was necessary yet he did not explain how the cheque was cashed.
8. P.W. Muhammad Suleman the then Administrator of the Town Committee deposed that the cash book as well as the cheque book used to be kept by petitioner in lock and key. According to him, his signature on the cheque was a forgery.
9. P.W. Ghulam Abbas the handwriting expert, deposed that the signatures on the disputed cheque appear to be in the handwriting of the person whose specimen handwriting was sent to him, namely, the petitioner.
10. Learned trial Judge believed the officers of the bank and the Town Committee and also the handwriting expert in reaching the conclusion that petitioner had forged the cheque in question and received Rs.5,000 from the bank. He acquitted the petitioner of the charge under section 409, P.P.C. But held him guilty under sections 468, 471 and 418, P.P.C., and sentenced him, on the first count, to R.I. For three years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000, on the second count; to one year R.I. And fine of Rs.1.000, and similar sentences of jail and fine on the third count. The jail sentences were however directed by him to run concurrently.
11. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, petition filed an appeal in Sind High Court which was dismissed by a learn Judge of the same Court. He however while maintaining the convictions on all the three counts, reduced the jail sentence awarded under section 468, P.P.C. From three years to one year, and of fine Rs.5,000 to Rs.1,000.
12. Petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of t High Court, and Mr. Hayat Junejo, the learned counsel appearing support of the petition, submits that the learned Judge in the High Court while holding that the bank official P.W. Muhammad Khan a the officers of the Town Committee, P.Ws. Muhammad Yousuf and Ata Muhammad, were accomplices in the crime, has erred in relying up their evidence in support of the charges against the petitioner. Learn counsel further submitted that on the finding of the High Court itself that the principal witnesses in the case, including the Administrator and the Secretary, and the bank official wee accomplices, petitioner's guilt could not be maintained on his admission that he had written the cheques in question, for, it is well-settlement principle of law that if the statement of an accused is to be the on evidence, it must be accepted or rejected as a whole, and cannot relied upon only in part. As regards the opinion of the handwriting expert, learned counsel pointed out that it confined to the writing the cheque and surprisingly his opinion regarding the signature on the back of the cheque was not even sought for.
13. So far as P.W. Muhammad Khan, the bank official is concerned learned Judge in the High Court made a special note in the judgment that he is an accomplice in the crime. He has observed as follow: "From the statement of Mohammad Khan it further transpires that he too was an accomplice in this crime, as already stated above. No cheque could have been encashed without his signature. The cheque does bear signature purporting to be of the Second Officer i.e. The witness, but he says that his signature has also been forged. This is unbelievable at the face of it. The appellant could not have forged the signature of the Second Officer on the cheque. The fact of the matter is that the Bank officials were also in collusion with the officials of the Town Committee in this crime."
14. As regards P.Ws. Muhammad Yousuf, Abdur Razzak and Muhammad Suleman, learned Judge in the High Court made equally damaging observations in his judgment. This is what he expressed about these witnesses: "It is very surprising that all the officers of the Committee have tried to disown the custody of the cheque book. P.W Mohammad Yousuf Secretary of the Town Committee stated that the cheque book used to be kept in safe by the Administrate while P.W. Atta Mohammad, the Administrator states that the cheque book always remained in the custody of the Secretary P. W. Mohammad Suleman who was Administrator at the relevant time stated that the cheque book remained with the appellant who was working as Accounts Clerk. These inconsistencies support the allegation of the Appellant made in his statement that the Secretary and Administrator concerned have given evidence against him in order to save their own skin i.e. To save themselves of the consequences of the fraud and forgery which had actually taken place."
15. The only basis on which the learned Judge in the High Court held the petitioner guilty was his statement to the effect that the Secretary and the Administrator had' given evidence against him "in order to save their own skin". According to learned Judge this statement proves that petitioner "himself was aware of the fraud and forgery and that he acted at the instance of Secretary and Administrator of the Town Committee".