1. AJMAL MIAN, J.--This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 15-8-1987 passed by the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) at Karachi in Case No. 31 of 1986 convicting the present appellant and co-accused Javed Iqbal under section 409, P.P.C. And awarding them sentence of one month's R.I. And a fine of Rs. One lac each in default of payment thereof, each of the accused is to suffer R.I. For six months. The present appellant has filed the appeal against the above judgment but co-accused uptill now has not filed any appeal. It appears that F.I.R. Was lodged by Muhammad Anis Ahmed, Manager Allied Bank Limited, Central Branch Karachi hereinafter referred to as the branch against the present appellant and co-accused under section 409/420/447/453/471, P.P.C. On 27-3-1986 Exh.9-A, photocopy of which in the paper book is not legible. It also appears that the aforesaid Manager also made a complaint through his letter dated 26-3-1986 addressed to the Deputy Director, F.I.A. Banking Circle, Qamar House, MA. Jinnah Road, Karachi in respect of the above F.I.R. Alleging therein that the appellant in connivance, of co- accused Javed Iqbal, who was employed as messenger in Pakistan Navy and resident of B' Area Malir Colony stole an already utilised M/T from the old records from Bank Melli, Iran in the year 1981.
2. It was further alleged that the appellant managed to change the actual character of the said M/T with fluid and retyped it according to his own requirements inasmuch as he changed the name of the branch, name of the beneficiary and the amount in figures and words. It was further alleged that the appellant managed to put the said forged M/T in other vouchers against which a Cash Order No. 504598-6/3544, dated 18-7-1981 for Rs.1,98,990 was prepared and sent to National Bank of Pakistan, Pakistan Navy, Dockyard branch for the credit of Account No.20201 of Javed Iqbal co- accused and that said two accused managed to withdrew the amount from the said branch of National Bank of Pakistan and distributed the amount between themselves. It had come to the notice a few days back when the reconciliation statement was received by their branch from Bank Melli Iran which contained a request to afford a credit for Rs.1,98,994 in their account. The above complaint was made under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 380, P.P.C. The appellant was co- accused were formally charged on 24-12--1986. The charge reads as follows:- Charge I, Justice (Retd.) Z.A. Channa, Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks) Karachi, constituted under Ordinance IX of 1984, do hereby charge you accused (i) Javed Iqbal son of Sibte A.I and (ii) Muhammad Aslam son of Baqar Hussain as follows:-- That you Muhammad Aslam, while posted as typist in the Allied Bank Ltd., Central Branch, Karachi, and you accused Javed Iqbal, employed as Messenger in the Pakistan Navy, hatched a plan to defraud the Allied Bank Limited and in pursuance of the said plan, you accused Muhammad Aslam stole from the old record of Bank Melli, Iran, in the year 1981, M/T No. 8001 and falsified and manipulated the character of the said M/T for the purpose of committing fraud/deception, and which forged M/T was dishonestly utilized by you for preparing a cash order, No.504598-6/3544, dated 8-7-1981, for an amount of Rs.1,98,990 and was sent to the National Bank of Pakistan, Navy Dockyard Branch, for crediting the same in Account No. 20201 of you accused Javed Iqbal, and the said amount was ultimately withdrawn from the said bank by you accused Javed Iqbal, and you both thereby have committed offences punishable under section 409/420/467/468/471/380 read with section 109, P.P.C. And within the cognizance of this Court.
3. And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on the aforesaid charge.
4. Karachi. dated 24-12-1986(Sd.)
5. (Z.A. Channa), Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks), Karachi.
6. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the above charge which was read over to them in open Court.
7. (Sd.)
8. (ZA. Channa), Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks), Karachi.
2. The prosecution in support of the case examined Mian Muhammad Saeed, Assistant Vice- President who was incharge of the Allied Bank Central Branch from 8-2-1985 to 12-3-1987 (Exh.3), Ghulam Murtaza who is working as an officer Grade 3 in the Branch since December, 1979 upto June, 1980 (Exh.4), P.W. Iftikhar Ahmed Khan who was working in the Branch since 30-9-1984 as Manager, Foreign Exchange Department, Muhammad Asim Khan who was posted at the Branch from 1977 to 1984 as an officer, P.W. Hassan Abbas Jafri, an employee of Dockyard Branch of National Bank of Pakistan, who produced certified copy of the account of accused Javed Iqbal i.e. Account No. 20201 as Exh.7/A, Pay Order Exh.2/E for the aforesaid sum which was withdrawn by co-- -accused Javed Iqbal through a self-cheque Exh.2/B, P.W. Muhammad Ismail Remittance Incharge at the Branch, who described the procedure of disposing of M/T and the duties of the appellant. In addition to the above ocular evidence and the documentary evidence, a number of above documents were produced including memo of seizure etc.
3. The appellant and the co-accused Javed Iqbal in their 342, Cr.P.C. Statements denied the factum of having committed the alleged offence. They also examined D.W.1 Shafique, who has deposed that both the accused were brothers of his wife but subsequently changed the statement and stated that Javed Iqbal was the brother of his wife while accused Muhammad Aslam, the appellant is the cousin of his wife and of co-accused Javed Iqbal, D.W.2 Zahida Parveen sister of co-accused Javed lqbal and cousin of the present appellant.
9. The learned Special Court by a detailed judgment recorded the conviction in the above terms. The appellant has filed the above appeal as mentioned hereinabove but the co-accused has not filed any appeal uptill now, though the sentence was for one month's R.I.
4. In support of the above appeal, Syed Izhar Haider Rizvi learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant and relied upon by the learned Special Court could not have been relied upon as it was neither voluntary nor without any inducement, nor true. The alleged extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant before P.Ws. Mian Muhammad Saeed, Iftikhar Ahmed and Muhammad Asim Khan. Since in 342,'
10. Cr.P.C. Statement the appellant was not confronted with any question as to the making of extra- judicial confession before P.W. Muhammad Asim Khan, we may discard the evidence of the above witness in this regard. However, the name of the other two witnesses were put to the appellant in his 342, Cr.P.C. Statement before whom he had made extra-judicial confession. In our view the conclusion arrived at by the learned Special Court seems to be correct. Apart from the above extra judicial confession, there is other material on record to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence. It is an admitted position according to the defence witnesses that the appellant is closely related to co-accused Javed Iqbal in whose favour the forged pay order for the above sum was made, who admittedly deposited the above pay order in his account and admittedly withdrew the amount through a cheque. All these documents are on record alongwith the statement of accounts. Photographs were produced by co-accused Javed Iqbal in his 342, Cr.P.C. Statement and were admitted by the defence witnesses in their depositions, which go a long way to show that the present appellant was not only a close relation of co-accused but was on very friendly terms. In the marriage of co-accused Javed Iqbal in most of the photographs he is sitting next to the co- accused Javed. The above photographs were put to the appellant and co-accused in their 342, Cr.P.C. Statement. Co-accused had no other link with any other 6hiployee of the bank for getting the above M/T forged and pay order made in his favour. The inferences drawn by the learned Special Court on the basis of material on record seems to be correct. The learned Special Court has taken very lenient view in the matter by awarding sentence of only one month's R.I.
11. The appeal has no merits and, therefore, it is dismissed.
12. These are the reasons in persuance of a short order of even date.
13. N.H.Q./M-774/K