' ABDUL WAHEED, J.-- Riaz-ud-Din Johar son of Fayyaz-ud-Din has filed this appeal against the judgment passed on 27th of February, 1985 by the Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore whereby he was convicted and sentenced as follows:-
(i) under section 467, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs,12,00,000 or in default to undergo R.I. For a further period of five years;
(ii) under section 471, P.P.C. To R.I. For three years and to pay a fine of Rs,6,000 or in default to undergo R.I. For a further period of nine months; and
(iii) under section 471/511, P.P.C. To R.I. For 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs,3,00,000 or in default to undergo R.I. For a further period of four months.
' All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant was given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. For the period he remained in custody as an under trial in this case.
2. On 19th of February, 1981, a case under sections 409/420/463 and 471, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Naulakha, Lahore on the following complaint Exh.P.W.11/1 written by Azmat Ullah Khan P.W.11, Manager McLeod Road Branch of National Bank of Pakistan Lahore to the S.H.O. Police Station Naulakha:- "A demand Draft No, 15-003911, dated 12-2-1981 for Rs,1,25,000 favouring one Raiz-ud-Din Jauhar was presented to us in clearing by M.C.B. Ltd. Railway Road Branch, Lahore for realisation. We did not pay the draft as Check Signal received through telegram was incorrect. Therefore, we returned the said draft to the collecting Bank (M.C.B.) with the remarks that disbursement guarantee is required. In the meantime our National Press Trust Branch, Karachi advised telegraphically that the said draft was not issued by them. We accordingly informed the Manager, M.C.B. Railway Road, Lahore that the Draft No,15-003911 was bogus fabricated and fake, therefore, they should keep a watch on the payee of the draft namely Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar.
The said Manager M.C.B. Has just informed us that the said payee is sitting in their office and waiting for the payment of the draft amount. The payee in collusion with others has attempted to defraud the Bank by stealing, fabricating, forging the said draft thereby attempting to cause wrongful loss to the Bank and gain to themselves. You are, therefore, requested to register a case under appropriate provision of law and take immediate action against the said accused."
3. The facts leading to the above complaint have been re-capitulated by the learned trial Court in its impugned judgment as under:- "Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar and Anwar Adil, the acquitted accused, were Assistants in National Bank of Pakistan, Model Branch, Karachi. Riazud-Din Jauhar, accused, stole two demand draft books; one containing 100 blank draft forms from No, 15002801 to 15002900 and the other also containing the same number of draft forms from 15003901 to 15004000, some draft advice and fan fold forms and took those to his own home at Karachi. Thereafter, he filed in seven demand draft forms, dated 12- 2-1981, purporting to have been issued by National Press Trust Building Branch N.B.P. Karachi to different branches of N.B.P. At Lahore for different sums of money in his favour as payee or his order after making on them signatures in red ink of S. Ali Mujtaba Rizvi, the then Accountant and Feroze Shah Khan, the then Manager of said Branch of N.B.P., Karachi in his own hand. He also prepared seven advices and seven fan fells, all dated 12-2-1981, relevant to said seven demand drafts in his own hand. He made signature, of said two officers on said documents also in his own hand. On 16th February, 1981, he presented demand draft No, 15003906, Exh.P.W.1/1 for a sum of Rs,3,000 shown to have been issued by N.P.T. Building Branch, N.B.P. Karachi to the Manager N.B.P. Samanabad Branch, Lahore. The said demand draft shows two signatures of Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar on its back and these were verified by Tasnim M. Saleem, Proprietor of Libas Markaz, Samanabad, Lahore an account- holder of said branch of the bank and on the basis of said verification he got the said demanded draft encashed and received a sum of Rs,3,000 on 16-2-1981. Thereafter, he took demand draft No, 15003911, Exh.P.W.3/13, for a sum of Rs,1,25,000 shown to have been issued by N.P.T. Building Branch, N.B.P. Karachi to Manager N.B.P. McLeod Road Branch, Lahore, payable to him or his order and presented it in Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. Railway Road Branch, Lahore for collection. The accused had made endorsement on the back of this draft, under his signature, that it should be paid to Messrs Bhutta Trade Impex, whose proprietor had, in his own turn, made an endorsement, under his own signature, that it should be credited to their Account No, 449 with the said bank. The M.C.B. Railway Road, Lahore sent this cheque for collection to N.B.P. McLeod Road Branch, Lahore.
The Manager, N.B.P. McLeod Road Branch, Lahore, however, found that check signal on the demand draft was incorrect. He, therefore, by means of a telegram, dated 17-2-1981 (Copy Exh.P.W.3/11) informed Milba Trust Karachi of the incorrectness of the said signal on the said demand draft and sought advice telegraphically. He returned the demand draft to M.C.B., Railway Road Branch, Lahore with an objection slip, dated 17-2-1981, Exh.P.W.3/13 with an objection that disbursement guarantee is required for payment. It appears that the said demand draft was again sent for collection. In the meantime, Milba Trust Karachi in its reply telegram dated 11-2-1981 to N.B.P., McLeod Road Branch, Lahore informed that the said draft had not been issued by N.P.T. Building Branch of N.B.P., Karachi and payment should be stopped. Accordingly, the Manager N.B.P., McLeod Road Branch, Lahore informed the Manager of M.C.B. Railway Road Branch, Lahore that demand draft was fake and forged and again returned the said draft with a fresh objection slip, dated 19-2- 1981, Exh.P.W.3/16, asking for disbursement guarantee over again. On the same day, however, Riaz- udDin Jauhar, accused, appeared in M.C.B. Railway Road Branch, Lahore and produced Cheque No,955870, dated 16-2-1981, Exh.P.W.3/14, issued by Bhutta Trade Impex for a sum of Rs,1,25,000 in favour of accused Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar. Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar made his signature on the back of this cheque and presented it for encashment in the hope that the demand draft deposited by him in the account of Bhutta Trade Impex would have been encashed by this time. On this, the Manager Railway Road Branch of M.C.B. Contacted the Manager N.B.P. McLeod Road Branch, Lahore and informed him of arrival and presence in the bank of the accused to get cash. P.W.11 Azmatullah Khan the Manager, McLeod Road Branch, of N.B.P., Lahore then made a written complaint Exh.P.W.11/1, dated 19-2-1981 to the S.H.O., Police Station Naulakha."
4. The case was investigated by S.I. Bashir Ahmad P.W.14. The details of the investigation as succinctly given in the impugned judgment are as follows:- 'Bashir Ahmad S.I. Proceeded to M.C.B., Railway Road, Lahore and apprehended the accused, Riaz- ud-Din Jauhar in the said branch of the M.C.B. On personal search of the accused in the presence of P.W.11 Azmatullah Manager, N.B.P., McLeod Road Branch, Lahore and P.W.3 Muhammad Saleem Manager (Operation) N.B.P., Zonal Office, Lahore he recovered from the pocket of the accused Riaz- ud-Din Jauhar demand draft No,15043915, dated 12-2-1981 of Rs,90,000 purporting to have been issued by N.P.T. Building Branch, N.B.P., Karachi Ichhra Branch of N.B.P. Lahore, Exh.P.W.3/3 and demand Draft No,15003918, dated 12-2-1981 for a sum of Rs,1,10,000 purporting to have been issued by N.P.T. Building Branch of N.B.P. Karachi to N.B.P. Data Darbar Zaildar Road, Lahore Exh.P.W.3/4 and draft advice and fan-fold, dated 12-2-1981 relating to the latter draft respectively Exh.P.W.3/5 and Exh.P.W.3/6 and demand Draft No,15003905, dated 12-2-1981 for a sqm of Rs,2,500 purporting to have been issued by N.P.B. Building Branch of N.B.P. Karachi to N.B.P. Chauburji Branch Lahore in favour of Riaz-udDin Jauhar as payee, Exh.P.W.3/7 and its relevant draft advice P.W.3/8 and its connected fanfold Exh.P.W.3/9. All these documents were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer by virtue of memo. P.W.3/10. On the same day P.W.11 Azmatullah Khan Manager, produced before the said Investigating Officer a photo copy of demand Draft No, 15003911, dated 12-2-1981 Exh.P.W.3/1 which he had got prepared for record in his branch of the N.B.P. This was taken into possession by the said Investigating Officer on the said date vide memo. Exh.P.W.3/2 in the presence of P.W.5 Fahim Butt, Manager, M.C.B. Railway Road, Lahore and P.W.3 Malik Muhammad Saleem. On 21-2-1981 P.W.5 Fahim Butt, Manager, M.C.B. Produced before the said Investigating Officer the original demand Draft No, 15003911, dated 12-2-1981 for a sum of Rs,1,25,000 Exh.P.W.3/13, objection slips dated 17-2-1981 and 19-3-1981 by the National Bank of Pakistan, McLeod Road Branch Exh.P.W.3/15-16 as well as cheque No,955870 dated 16-2-1981 from Bhutta Trade Impex, in favour of Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar, accused for a sum of Rs,1,25,000 Exh.P.W.3/14 and an objection slip prepared by M.C.B. Railway Road, Lahore purporting to return the said cheque to the presenter with the endorsement 'Refer to the drawer' Exh.P.W.3/17. The said Investigating Officer took these documents into possession vide memo. Exh.P.W.3/18 on the same day in the presence of P.W.11 Azmatullah and P.W.3 Malik Muhammad Saleem. On 21-2-1981, P.W.11 Azmatullah Khan, Manager, N.B.P. McLeod Road Branch, Lahore produced before the said Investigating Officer photostat copy of telegram sent by him to Milba Trust Karachi Exh.P.W.3/11, and photo copy of receipt of telegram, the reply telegram from Milba Trust Karachi stating that the said demand draft had not been issued by N.P.T. Building Branch of N.B.P. Karachi and payment should be stopped and draft advice of said demand draft for the said sum of Rs,1,25,000 Exh.P.W.8/1 and its relevant fan-fold Exh.P.W.8/2. Bashir Ahmad, Investigating Officer took these five documents into possession vide memo. Exh.P.W.3/12 in the presence of P.W.5 Fahim Butt and P.W.3 Malik Muhammad Saleem. The accused Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar led the Investigating Officer to Samanabad Branch of N.B.P. Where P.W.4 Khuda Yar, Accountant produced before him Draft No,15003906, dated 12-2-1981 Exh.P.W.1/1 issued by N.P.T.
Building Branch, National Bank of Pakistan Karachi for Rs,3,000 in favour of Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar payee, which had been encashed on 16-2-1981, from that branch on the basis of verification of signature of Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar by Tasneem M. Slaeem Proprietor of Libas Markaz, an account- holder of the said branch of the bank holding Account No, 146 there and draft advice relating to the said draft Exh.P.W.1/2 fan-fold relating to the same draft Exh.P.W.1/3 and specimen signature card of said Tasneem M. Saleem Exh.P.W.1/4. The Investigating Officer took these documents into possession vide memo. Exh.P.W.1/5 in the presence of P.W.1 Zahid Mahmood, Head Cashier, Samanabad Branch of N.B.P. On 22-2-1981. The accused Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar, while in police custody, led the police party to the house of one Mirza Mahmood Beg at Samanabad, Lahore and brought out the said sum of Rs,3,000 after opening the said attache-case and produced it before the Investigating Officer in the presence of P.W.4 Khuda Yar. The said sum consisted of 30 currency notes of one hundred rupees each. Apart from that Draft -No,15003919, dated 12-2-1981 for a sum of Rs,1,05,000 shown to have been issued by N.P.T. Building Branch, of N.B.P., Karachi to N.B.P., Krishan Nagar Branch, Lahore in favour of Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar, payee, Exh.P.W.4/1 and its relevant draft advice P.W.4/3 and fan-fold P.W.4/5 and demand Draft No,15002851, dated 12-2-1981 alleged to have been issued by National Press Trust Building Branch of National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi to Badami Bagh Branch of National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore for a sum of Rs,1,20,000 in favour of accused Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar payee, Exh.P.W.4/2 and relevant draft advice of the said draft P.W.4/4 and its connected fan-fold Exh.P.W.4/6 were also recovered from the said attache-case. The Investigating Officer took the said money and the said documents into possession vide memo.
Exh.P.W.4/7 in the presence of Khuda Yar P.W.4. The Investigating Officer, thereafter proceeded to Karachi alongwith accused Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar. He led the police party to his residential quarter, namely, House No, 5 Street No,14, Block No,H/2 Nazimabad, Karachi and got recovered the said two draft books Exh.P.W.7/1 and Exh.P.W.7/2 (out of one four blank demand draft forms were missing and out of the other 9 blank draft forms were missing including the seven drafts which are subject- matter of present case) and two stamps, one of Feroze Shah Khan, Staff Officer and the other of N.P.T. Building Branch, Karachi and seven blank forms of draft' advices and 7 blank forms of fan- folds. The Investigating Officer took these into possession vide memo. Exh.P.W.13/1. The Investigating Officer arrested at Karachi co-accused Anwar Adil since acquitted. When the said Investigating Officer had returned to Lahore P.W.6 Abdul Basit, Manager, N.B.P., Ichhra Branch, Lahore produced before him on 1-3-1981, one draft advice in respect of Draft No,15003915, dated 12-2-1981 for a sum of Rs,90,000 allegedly issued by N.P.T. Building Branch N.B.P. Karachi in favour of N.B.P. Ichhra Exh.P.W.2/1 and its connected fan-fold Exh.P.W.2/2. The Investigating Officer took these two documents into possession vide memo. Exh.P.W.2/3 in the presence of Muhammad Khalid P.W.2.
' The Investigating Officer had taken the specimen writing of the accused in the words and figures as given on some of the recovered documents. He also made him make specimen signatures of Feroze Shah Khan and S. Ali Mujtaba in red ink. These were got prepared by the Investigating Officer before a Magistrate on sheets Exhs.C.W.1/1 to C.W.1/3. He also took the specimen signatures and writing of S. Ali Mujtaba P.W.9 on sheets P.W.9/1 to P.W.9/3 before a Magistrate. He also took the specimen signatures of Feroze Shah Khan P.W.8 on sheets P.W.8/3 to 5, later also exhibited as Exhs.C.W.2/1 to 3. He also took certain writings of the co-accused Anwar Adil since acquitted before a Magistrate. He sent all these documents alongwith the questioned documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Crimes Branch, Lahore for opinion of the handwriting expert. The opinion dated 1-10-1981 Exh.C.W.2/4, signed by Muhammad Sarwar Examiner of questioned documenti ,and by section incharge. It was to the effect that the questioned signatures of S. Ali Mujtaba and Feroze Shah Khan on all the seven demand drafts and the seven draft advices and all the seven fan-fold were forged when compared with signatures of S. Ali Mujtaba and Feroze Shah Khan, respectively on sheets Exhs.P.W.9/1 to 3 and Exhs.P.W.8/3 to 5 also exhibited as C.W.2/1 to 3 but were similar in characteristics with the specimen English signatures of said two persons made by accused Riazud-Din Jauhar on specimen sheets Exh.C.W.1/1 to 3. It was further to the effect that writing on all the seven demand drafts, all the seven draft advices and all the seven fan-folds were similar to specimen English writing on specimen sheets Exh.C.W.1/1 to 3 made by accused Riaz-udDin Jauhar."
5. After the submission of the challan on the basis of the above investigation, the appellant and Anwar Adil, his co-accused, were charged as under by the Special Judge (Central), Lahore who was earlier seized of this case:- "Firstly: that you Riaz-ud-Din Jauhar and Anwar Adil Rana in connivance with each other some time prior to 12-2-1981 stole two draft books No,15002801 and 15003901 (containing 100 drafts each), advices forms, fan-fold and two rubber stamps from the National Bank of Pakistan Model Branch and N.P.T. Branch respectively Karachi and thereby committed offence under section 380, P.P.C.
And within my cognizance ' Secondly, that you both in connivance with each other on 12-2-1981 fraudulently and dishonestly forged Drafts Nos.15003905 for Rs,2,500, No,15003906 for Rs,3,000, No,15003911 for Rs,1,25,000, No,15003915 for Rs,90,000, No,15003918 for Rs,1,10,000, No,15003919 for Rs,1,05,000 and No,15002851 for Rs,1,20,000 all dated 12-2-1981 intending that the aforesaid drafts shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed offence under section 468, P.P.C. And within my cognizance.
' Thirdly, that you both in connivance with each other fraudulently and dishonestly in the month of February, 1981 at Lahore used forged Draft No,15003906 for Rs,3,000, No,15003911 for Rs,1,25,000 and No,15003915 for Rs,90,000 as genuine by presenting them for encashment at National Bank of Pakistan, Samanabad Branch, McLeod Road Branch and Ichhra Branch respectively while both of you knew to be forged and thus committed offence under section 371, P.P.C. And within my cognizance.
' Fourthly, that both of you in the month of February, 1981 in connivance with each other cheated the National Bank of Pakistan, Samanabad Branch, Lahore by presenting them forged draft No,15003906 and thereby dishonestly induced them to make you the payment of Rs,3,000 of the said forged draft and thus you committed offence under section 420, P.P.C. And within my cognizance. Fifthly, that you both being employee of the National Bank of Pakistan, also committed criminal misconduct in order to derive pecuniary advantage as mentioned above and thus committed offence under section 5(2), P.CA., 1947 and within my cognizance."
6. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of its case before the Special Judge (Central).
The statements of the appellant and his co-accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Remained to be recorded when the case was transferred to the Court of Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore on the promulgation of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984.
7. The learned transferee Court after examining the material on record by its order, dated 2nd of October, 1984 acquitted Anwar Adil by invoking the provisions of section 249-A/265-K, Cr.P.C. On the ground that on the evidence on record, there was no probability of his conviction for the scheduled offences.
8. The learned transferee Court also dropped the charges under sections 380 and 420, P.P.C. And section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the appellant on the ground that these were not scheduled offences as defined in section 2(d) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 and were not triable by the Special Court.
9. The statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded in respect of the remaining charges. After recording the statement the learned trial Court re-summoned Kalbe Abbas P.W.10 and re-examined him as C.W.3. It also summoned Khalid Bashir Tarar, Magistrate, Muhammad Sarwar, Handwriting Expert and Abdul Haq, Magistrate and examined them as C.W.1, C.W.2 and C.W.4 respectively. S.I. Bashir Ahmad P.W.14 was also re-summoned and re-examined.
After that the statement of the appellant was again recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied that signatures and writing on the demand drafts and other documents were in his hand. He denied that any document written or signed by him, in due course of banking business, passed through the hands of Qalbe Abbas P.W.10. He admitted that his specimen writing and signatures were taken before the Magistrates but alleged that the report of handwriting expert was wrong, baseless and unreliable. He also stated that he had not forged any writing or signature. He also said that bank officers who had made statements against him had tried to save their own skin and reiterated that he had been made a scape-goat. He, however, declined to produce any defence even after the said additional evidence had come on record against him.
10. The prosecution evidence against the appellant comprised statements of F.C. Abdur Rehman P.W.13 and S.I. Bashir Ahmad P.W.14 who deposed to the recovery of two draft books Exhs.P.W.7/1 and P.W.2/7 and two stamps Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2 vide memo. Exh.P.W.13/1 at the instance of the appellant from his house situate in Karachi. Faheem-ud-Din Butt P.W.5, Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank, Railway Road, Branch, Lahore testified to the attempt by the appellant to get demand draft Exh.P.W3/13 for Rs,1,25,000 encashed and recovery by the police on 19th February, 1981 of the alleged documents cheque Exh.P.W.3/14 and objection slips Exhs.P.W.3/15 to P.W.3/17 vide memo.
Exh.P.W.3/18. Faheem-ud-Din Butt P.W.5 was corroborated by Azmat Ullah P.W.11, Manager, McLeod Road Branch of National Bank of Pakistan Lahore. Malik Muhammad Saleem P.W.3, another bank officer, deposed to the apprehension of the appellant in the premises of the Muslim Commercial Bank, Railway Road Branch, Lahore and on his personal search recovery from him three drafts Exhs.P.W.3/3 for Rs,90,000 P.W3/4 for Rs,1,10,000 and P.W.3/7 for Rs,2,500 and their connected documents Exhs.P.W.3/5, P.W.3/6 and P.W.3/8-9 vide memo. Exh.P.W.3/10. Azmat Ullah, Manager P.W.11 corroborated him also. Zahid Mahmood P.W.1 stated that Khuda Yar Cheema, Accountant of Samanabad Branch of National Bank of Pakistan on 21-2-1981 produced before the police draft Exh.P.W.1/1 for Rs,3,000, which had been encashed on 16-21981. Its connected draft advice Exh.P.W.1/2 and fan-fold Exh.P.W.1/3 as well as specimen signature record of one Tasnim M. Saleem Exh.P.W.1/4 were also recovered vide memo. Exh.P.W.1/5. Khuda Yar P.W.4 stated that appellant on 22-2-1981, while in custody, get recovered from the house of one Mirza Mahmood Beg, his acquaintance, situate in Rahat Park, Samanabad, Lahore from a box currency notes of the value of Rs,3,000 two drafts Exhs.P.W.4/1 and P.W.4/2 for Rs,1,05,000 and Rs,1,20,000 respectively. Alongwith their advices and fan-folds Exhs.P.W.4/3 to 6 vide memo. Exh.P.W.4/7. Feroze Shah Khan P.W.8 and Muhammad Sarwar C.W.2 the two handwriting experts, supported their report Exh.C.W.2/4 according to which bank draft Exh.P.W.3/13 for Rs,1,25,000 bank draft Exh.P.W.1/1 for Rs,3,000, bank draft Exh.P.W.4/1 for Rs,1,05,000, bank draft Exh.P.W.4/2 for Rs,1,20,000, bank draft Exh.P.W.3/3 for Rs,90,000, bank draft Exh.P.W.3/4 for Rs,1,10,000 and bank draft Exh.P.W.3/7 for Rs,2,500 were forged.
11. The learned trial Judge did not accept the report of the handwriting experts on the ground that it was not supported by reasons. However, he himself embarked upon comparison of the questioned documents and arrived at the conclusion, supported by detailed reasons, that the questioned documents were forged by the appellant.
12. The learned trial Court after appraising the above evidence held that the appellant was guilty of the offences under section 467, P.P.C. For forging seven bank drafts Exh.P.W.1/1, Exhs. P.W.3/3, 4, 7 and 13, Exh.P.W.4/1 and Exh.P.W.4/2 for an aggregate amount of Rs,5,55,500 under section 471, P.P.C. For using the forged demand draft Exh.P.W.1/1 and withdrawing on the basis thereof a sum of Rs,3,000 from the Samanabad Branch of National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore and under section 471/511, P.P.C.
For making an abortive attempt to use the forged bank draft Exh.P.W.3/13 for Rs,1,25,000 and convicted and sentenced him as above.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the conviction and sentences of the appellant under sections 471 and 471/511, P.P.C.
14. He has, however, challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 467, P.P.C. On two grounds firstly that after discarding the evidence of the handwriting experts, the learned trial Court could not without expertise itself undertake comparison of the questioned documents and record finding of guilty against the appellant on its own observations and secondly that since the appellant was charged for the offence under section 468, P.P.C. His conviction could not be invoked under section 467, P.P.C. Which is a major offence without having been charged thereunder:-
15. As regards the first objection, the learned trial Court felt disinclined to accept the report of the handwriting experts not on the ground that it was incorrect but for the technicality that it was not backed by reasons. The learned Court itself proceeded to examine the questioned documents in their minute characteristics and for various detailed reasons concluded that the same were forged by the appellant. The procedure adopted by the learned trial Court is not violate of any provision of law. Nor learned counsel for the appellant has been able to assail the cogency of the reasons which prevailed with the learned Court. Therefore, the first ground is untenable.
16. So far as the second objection is concerned, learned counsel for the State has not controverted the same. The learned trial Court was conscious of the fact that the appellant had been charged with the offence under section 468, P.P.C. But in spite of that it convicted the appellant under section 467, P.P.C. As in its view such a procedure was envisaged by section 237, Cr.P.C. With respect, we do not subscribe to the view of the learned, trial Court. No doubt the provisions of sections 237 and 238, Cr.P.C. Provide exceptions to the fundamental principle that an accused cannot be convicted of an offence of which he has not been charged, nevertheless section 237, Cr.P.C. Does not cover the case of a conviction for another or more aggravated form of the same offence, but for another offence nor section 238, Cr.P.C. Permits the conviction of an accused for a major offence when he is charged with a minor offence. The offence under section 467, P.P.C. In view of the severity of punishment it entails is undoubtedly graver than that under section 468, P.P.C. Moreover, in the circumstances, as also conceded by learned counsel for the State, the conviction of the appellant under section 468, P.P.C. Would meet the ends of justice.
17. In the result, while maintaining the convictions and sentences of the appellant under sections 471 and 471/511, P.P.C. We alter the conviction of the appellant from under section 467, P.P.C. To that under section 468, P.P.C. And reduce his sentence to R.I. For four years and to pay a fine of Rs,12,00,000 or in default to undergo R.I. For a further period of one year. As directed by the learned trial Court, all the sentences shall run concurrently and the appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
18. With the above alteration in the conviction and reduction in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed.