1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.--This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 31-7-1986 of learned Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks), Karachi, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under section 471, P.P.C. Read with Section 511, P.P.C. And sentenced to R.I. For one year and a fine of Rs,14,00,000 and in default of the payment of fine sentenced to further R.I. For three months. It may be mentioned here that applicant was also charged for offence under section 468,. P.P.C. But was acquitted in respect of that charge on the ground that direct evidence was not available to be produced to prove that appellant himself or at his instance some one committed forgery.
2. ' Briefly stated the relevant facts are that appellant was working as Upper Division Clerk at Passport Office, Sadar, Karachi and opened Account No,203 in the Passport Office Branch of National Bank of Pakistan. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12-5-1984 appellant deposited Rs,20 by way of cash deposit pay-in-slip but did not get the counter signature of the Accountant and went away alongwith pay-in-slip and counterfoil and subsequently tampered with the same and inserted figure and words to show an amount of Rs,6,95,120. Later on 11-8-1984 he presented a cheque of Rs,14,000 which was returned as his account did not show that much amount. On 12-8-1984 appellant wrote a letter to the Bank and enclosed in it photo copy of the deposit slip and on that basis claimed that he had deposited Rs,6,95,120 in his account. Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Khan, Manager of the Bank filed complaint with F.I.A. And after irvestigation case was challaned in the Court.
3. ' Prosecution before the trial Court examined 6 witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 Abdul Mujeeb Khan, who was at the relevant time Manager of the concerned Bank Branch, produced a large number of documents which are exhibited on the record. P.W.2 Shabbir Ahmed was Receiving Cashier at the relevant time. Appellant gave him Rs,20 which he entered in appellant's Account number 203. He signed and put stamp on the counterfoil and pay-in-slip, which he gave to the appellant for counter signature of the Accountant. P.W.3 is Muhammad Hasnain, who was Accountant at the relevant time and according to him appellant did not bring to him pay-in-slip for his counter signature. P.W.4 is Mehmoodul Haq, who was Head Cashier in the Bank Branch at the relevant time. According to him there was discrepancy in the accounts of Receiving Cashier and Accountant and ultimately it was found that pay-in-slip of Rs,20 deposited by appellant was missing. Duplicate pay-in-slip Ex.2/E was prepared and placed on the record. P.W.5 Shoibullah Siddiqui was Senior Assistant, who deposed that after discovery of the discrepancy he gave name of appellant as account-holder of Account number 203. Lastly prosecution examined Muhammad Nawaz, S.I. FIA (CBC), who registered F.I.R. And investigated the case.
4. ' Before the trial Court in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Appellant denied prosecution allegations and proclaimed innocence. He declined to give any defence.
5. ' We have heard Mr. Mirza Waqar Hussain, Advocate for appellant and Mr. Murtaza Hussain for State. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that appellant was unrepresented before the trial Court and the counsel for the appellant met with an accident as such he could not appear and further time was not allowed to the appellant to engage another counsel and the trial Court proceeded with the case and examined all the witnesses with the result that appellant was prejudiced and the prosecution witnesses could not be effectively cross-examined by his counsel.
6. In this context perusal of the diary sheet in the record of the trial Court shows that charge-sheet was submitted on 11-8-1985 and on 25-8-1985 Mr. Abdul Aziz Shaikh, Advocate appeared on behalf of appellant and copies under section 161, Cr.P.C. Were supplied to the appellant. The case was adjourned to 9-9-1985 for framing of charge. On 9-9-1985 Mr. Abdul Aziz Shaikh, Advocate remained absent and appellant stated that he had already received copies of 161, Cr.P.C, statements. The case was adjourned to 31-10-1985 for framing of charge. On 31-10-1985 appellant was present in person on bail and the charge was framed and the case was adjourned to 14-1- 1986 for evidence. Office was directed to issue summons to the witnesses. On the next date i.e, 14-1- 1986, nine witnesses were present and they were bound down for the next date as Presiding Officer was busy in writing of judgment. On 25-3-1986 some witnesses were present and others were not as they were not served, the case was adjourned. On 16-6-1986 again for the same reasons as stated above the case was adjourned. On 8-7-1986 evidence of some witnesses was recorded and on the following day also recording of evidence was continued and the case was concluded. On all these dates mentioned above appellant was present in person on bail and the counsel was not present and no request was made by the appellant to be allowed to engage a new counsel. In fact there is no application available in the record filed by the appellant showing that his counsel had met with an accident and on that ground and for that matter on any other ground adjournment was sought. Perusal of record further shows that appellant himself has cross-examined all the prosecution witnesses at some length. Not a single P.W. Has been left out who has not been cross- examined by the appellant with the exception of P.W.6 Muhammad Nawaz Investigating Officer.
7. Investigating Officer is the only witness who was not cross-examined. Appellant also raised specific contentions before the trial Court which are enumerated in the impugned judgment. In the circumstances it cannot be said that appellant was not afforded opportunity of proper representation by his counsel in the trial Court.
8. ' Prosecution has produced overwhelming evidence of incriminating nature to show that appellant attempted to use forged pay-in-slip. Photostat copy of counterfoil (Ex. 2/A-1) was enclosed alongwith letter dated 12-8-1984 addressed to the Manager of the Bank in which claim was made by the appellant that he had deposited an amount of Rs,6,95,120 on 12-5-1984, when in fact on that day he had deposited Rs,20 only. On receiving such complaint, P.W. 1 Abdul Mujeeb Khan investigated the matter and found that on 12-5-1984 only Rs,20 were deposited as such entry was available in the receiving book Ex.2/C. This amount of Rs,20 was received by Cashier Shabbir Ahmed, who made the entry of Rs,20 (Ex. 2/C) and also put his signature on the pay-in-slip alongwith stamp showing deposit of Rs,20 only. The mistake made was that Cashier Shabbir Ahmad handed over the pay-in-slip to the appellant to be carried to the Accountant for his counter signature. This was done for the reason that appellant was a regular and known customer and was an employee in the Passport Office which, also had account in the same Bank and further appellant also had personal Account No,203 in which he made the deposit in dispute. Instead of obtaining counter signature from the Accountant, appellant went away and inserted additions in the words and figures to show a very large amount subsequently claimed by him in the complaint which he addressed in writing to the Manager. On that very day in the evening the mistake was discovered for the reason that there was discrepancy of Rs,20 in the accounts of Cashier and the Accountant. Effort was made but pay-in-slip in respect of Rs,20 was shown in the account of Cashier as surplus because this amount was not included in the account of Accountant. P.W.2 Shabbir Ahmad has deposed that he had signed pay-in-slip in which entry of Rs,20 only was shown as deposit and be had never received a sum of Rs,6,95.120 from the appellant as claimed by him. Subsequently in the pay-in-slip in front of word twenty, "six lacs ninety-five thousand and one hundred" and likewise in figure were added. P.W.3 Muhammad Hasnain Accountant has very clearly stated that on 12-5-1984.Appellant did not bring to him pay-in-slip and he denied having put any signature by way of counter signature on the said pay-in-slip. He produced cash scroll of 12-5-1984 to show that there was no entry in it relating to the deposit in dispute. P.W.4 Mehmoodul Haq, Head Cashier has deposed that on 12-5-1984 after discovery of discrepancy with regard to Rs,20 and because pay-in-slip relating to that amount was not traceable he went to the Passport Office in search of appellant but appellant was not available there. In such circumstances since pay-in-slip was not available and Rs,20 were to be accounted for, duplicate pay-in-slip Ex-2/E was prepared. Evidence of P.W.5 Shoibullah Siddiqui who is Senior Assistant in the Bank is to the effect that he gave name of appellant as account-holder of Account number 203 and further he deposed that on 24th July, 1984 appellant brought a cheque of Rs,15 for payment to him and inquired from him as to what was the amount of balance in his account. It is also the case of the prosecution that during the investigation PW 6 Muhammad Nawaz, S.I. Of FIA secured original counterfoil Ex.2/D from the appellant. This fact is not denied by the appellant for the reason that he had himself made a claim of the amount of Rs,6,95,120 as mentioned in the said document in the complaint he addressed to the Manager and himself produced photo copy of the original counterfoil which was secured from him by the Police Officer. All the five witnesses from the Bank whose names have been given above have testified with regard to the relevant details of the pay- in-slip, original counterfoil of which has been recovered from the appellant. These witnesses have been cross-examined by the appellant but there is nothing adverse in the cross-examination to suggest that they have B given false evidence or attempted to implicate falsely the appellant in this case. Not only that but because Muhammad Hasnain, Accountant denied having countersigned the original pay-in-slip, his specimen signatures were obtained during the investigation and the same alongwith original pay-in-slip were sent to the handwriting expert who has submitted report Ex-7/E which contains positive finding that lc signatures of Accountant on the disputed document do not tally with his specimen signatures.
9. ' It was contended by Mr.Murtaza Hussain that in the original counterfoil of pay-in-slip additions have been made in the figure after affixation of stamp because figures used on top of stamp are not broken with the impact of the stamp. With the help of magnifying glass we had examined minutely the stamp and the figure of 6,95,120 in the column of particulars, last part of which is on top cf print of stamp. We find force in the contention and we could easily see, 6,95,120 are prominently written and appear intact in spite of impact of the print of stamp. In the ordinary course if this figure as such was already there and afterwards stamp was put, then parts of this figure covered by the print of stamp would have become broken and dim wherever print of stamp came on top of them. It is therefore clear that counterfoil of pay-in-slip has been forged as claimed by the prosecution after original entry of Rs,20 was made. It is also correct that prosecution was not able to produce direct evidence to show that appellant himself has committed this forgery but there is adequate evidence to show that appellant originally deposited Rs,20 only and subsequently himself made claim of larger amount as is shown in the original counterfoil, photo copy of which was produced by the appellant in his letter of complaint addressed to the Manager in which he claimed that amount. When Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Khan, Manager of the bank deposed in the trial Court and produced complaint addressed by appellant to him alongwith photo copy of original counterfoil of the pay-in-slip, appellant did not challenge this statement as false.
10. ' Although appellant made the claim for such a large amount, still made no attempt in the trial Court to produce any evidence to show as to how he had collected such a large amount of money being only U.D.C. For deposit in the Bank on that day. He could have given some satisfactory explanation but he did not do so. Before us it was contended on his behalf that various amounts were collected from the relatives but no such plea was taken in the trial Court and nothing about it is mentioned nor any explanation is given in the 342, Cr.P.C. Statement. On the other hand it was contended by the appellant in the trial Court as shown in the impugned judgment that it was none of the business of the prosecution to ask as to from where the appellant got the money in question.
11. Even contents of complaint Ex-2/A addressed by the appellant to the Manager clearly show that according to him Accountant had asked him to bring deposit slip next day but appellant could not do so because he could not move his feet due to sprained ankle. This reason simply does not sound convincing as for such heavy amount a person could easily use some transport to come to the bank to produce original counterfoil.
12. ' Prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond any doubt as such we uphold the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeal.