' Muhammad Shah (37), Muhammad Amir Shah (55), both brothers.
' Noor Muhammad (65) and Muhammad Rafiq (32) were tried by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Divisions, for an offence under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 18-1-1984 gave the benefit of doubt to Noor Muhammad and acquitted him. Muhammad Amir Shah and Muhammad Rafiq were found guilty under section 468, P.P.C. And sentenced to seven years' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs,10,000 each or in default further R.I. For 2-1/2 years each. Muhammad Shah was only found guilty under section 419, P.P.C. And sentenced to three years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default R.I. For 2-1/2 years. It was directed that the amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Shah Nawaz and Ghulam Sarwar, P.Ws., in the proportion as under:-
(1) Shah Nawaz Khan P.W. Rs, 9,021.73.
(2) Ghulam Sarwar Khan, P.W. Rs, 9,021.77.
' The accused have appealed against their convictions and sentences.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Shah Nawaz and his brother Ghulam Sarwar owned some land in Mauza Qaziwala, Tehsil Isa Khel, District Mianwali. The said land was acquired by the State for construction of Chashma Barrage, and compensation was assessed by the Government. It is alleged that one Noor Muhammad received the compensation on behalf of Shah Nawaz and Ghulam Sarwar, P.Ws. Posing himself to be the special attorney on their behalf. Cheques were duly issued on 28th of June, 1972 which were received by said Noor Muhammad. The Special Attorney by endorsements credited the entire amount of compensation of both the P.Ws., i,e, Rs,18,043.50, in the Bank Account of Muhammad Amir Shah on 28-6-1972. Shah Nawaz gave an application with regard to the fraud committed on him and his brother on 8-3-1973 on the basis of which complaint Exh.P.W.12/A was recorded. Formal F.I.R. Exh.P.W.12/B was recorded on 26-3-1973. After due investigation, the challan was submitted in Court.
' The prosecution in support of its case produced 12 witnesses in all. P.W.1 Sharif Ahmad Virk, Audit Officer, Habib Bank deposed that two cheques Eich.P.G. And Dili. P.H. Were credited in the name of Muhammad Amir Shah. Abdul Rauf Siddiqi, P.W.2, Manager, Habib Bank Limited, stated that Muhammad Amir Shah had opened a bank account with their Branch on 29-31972, and the amount of compensation, in question was credited in his account. The following day he withdrew Rs,18,000 from the said account. Akhtar Hussain P.W.4, sold a stamp-paper, on which the appointment of special attorney was made. Muhammad Kabeer, P.W.5, is a petition-writer who scribed the Special Power of Attorney. Ghulam Sarwar Khan and Shah Nawaz P.Ws.7 and 8, respectively, stated that they were the owners of the land which was acquired by the State, but they did not receive any compensation. They stated that their so-called special attorney Noor Muhammad had received the same. Muhammad Bashir Qureshi, P.W.10 was Examiner of questioned documents, who deposed that the specimen signatures of Muhammad Amir and Muhammad Rafiq tallied with the signatures of marginal witnesses in the special power of attorney. He also deposed that the signatures of Muhammad Shah, accused, on Qabz-ul-Wasool, Exh.P.K. And Exh.P.L. Were correct whereby he had identified the receiver of the compensation on behalf of Shah Nawaz and Ghulam Sarwar. Ghulam Ali, P.W.12 had drawn the formal F.I.R.
' At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein they refuted the prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the case against the appellants is highly doubtful. Submits that there is no evidence which connects the appellants with the commission of the offence. Submits that apart from the statement of the Handwriting Expert, there is no other evidence which even remotely connects the appellants with the commission of the offence. The contentions of the learned counsel have been controverted by learned counsel for the State.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The special power of attorney shown to have been executed by Ghulam Sarwar and Shah Nawaz, P.Ws. 7 and 8, respectively, was examined by Muhammad Bashir Qureshi, Handwriting Expert. He has given a clear-cut opinion that the marginal witnesses in the said document who signed, were Muhammad Amir and Muhammad Rafiq. Muhammad Rafiq had also identified the execution of the said power of attorney before the relevant authorities. Ghulam Sarwar and Shah Nawaz, P.Ws., appeared in Court and stated that they never executed the said power of attorney. They were cross-examined at length but the defence could not bring anything on the record which could indicate that they were not truthful witnesses or they had some motive to falsely implicate the appellants. It has come on the record that both of them are illiterate yet they are shown to have signed the said power of attorney. It is in evidence that they are the residents of Qaziwala, Tehsil Isa Khel, while the stamp-paper was purchased from Bahawalpur and power of attorney was also scribed at Bahawalpur. No explanation is forthcoming why both the witnesses took the trouble of going to Bahawalpur for purposes of purchasing a stamp-paper which could also be available in Isa Khel.
' As far as the case of Muhammad Shah is concerned, he had signed Qabz-ul-Wasool Exh.P.K. And Exh.P.L. In the relevant column as a person who had identified the receiver of the compensation. He was a Lambardar of the village. The signatures of Muhammad Shah on a document which was forged power of attorney and compensation was received by a person who was not legally authorised were obtained by the same fraud. In these circumstances. Muhammad Shah was also equally a party to the fraud. I have gone through the judgment and find that cogent reasons have been given by the trial Court for arriving at the decision.
For what has been discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any doubt. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the occurrence took place in 1972 and the case against the appellants was registered in 1973 and since then they are undergoing the agony of investigation and trial, therefore, the sentence already undergone meets the ends of justice, requires consideration. I find that they have undergone about five months as undestrial prisoners and convicts, therefore, I hold that the sentence already undergone would adequately meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. With this alteration in the sentence of imprisonment, the appeal is dismissed.