1. ' This is a criminal appeal filed under section 410, Cr.P.C. Read with section 10 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958.
2. ' Facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant was working as a cashier in Government Science College Dokri. He was alleged to have prepared the bogus challan and maintained bogus account by making a number of interpolations and thereby committing the offence of misappropriation of total amount of Rs,3,272, which caused loss to the said college. The matter was referred by the Principal of the College to the Anti-Corruption Department which, after investigation and inquiry challenged the appellant and submitted the case before the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur for trial. The learned Judge, after framing of the charge and recording of evidence produced before it, convicted the appellant under sections 409 and 477-A, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced him under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to one year's R.I. And fine of Rs,10,000, or in default to undergo R.I. For six months, and also under section 477-A, P.P.C. To six months and fine of Rs,500 or in default to suffer R.I. For one month concurrently.
3. ' I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AA.-G for the State. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions:-
(i) The impugned judgment is based on handwriting expert's evidence only and is thus liable to be set aside on that ground alone.
(ii) The appellant was neither a cashier in the said college nor any entrustment of the money was made with him.
(iii) The Principal of the college was in fact himself involved in the case, as the amount was received by him from the appellant as loan.
(iv) As the last leg of his argument, the counsel submitted that the appellant has undergone the sentence of about six months before he was bailed out The remaining sentence may be remitted by this Court.
4. ' Learned counsel, in support of his submissions during the course of arguments, has referred to a number of authorities, including Muhammad Aslam v. State PLD 1964 Dacca 368, Muhammad Arif v. State 1969 P Cr. L J 8, Muhammad Rizvi v. State 1973 P Cr. L J 1015, Manzoor.Hussain Naser v. State 1982 P Cr. L J 594, N.Q. Industries v. Bapai Kaikhusro PLD 1968 Kar. 589 and Hazoor Bux v.
5. Muhammad Yakoob PLD 1975 Quetta 39.
6. ' Learned A.A.-G., on the other hand, submitted that the judgment is supported by the ocular evidence of five witnesses besides the evidence of handwriting expert. He has taken me through the said evidence.
7. ' As regards the first contention of the learned counsel, it appears that a number of witnesses, namely, Fakhruddin, Akbar Ali, Ahmadullah Qureshi, Rashid Ali and Muhammad Rafique were examined by the Court on the points involved and a number of documents were produced in the case. Besides, the disputed documents were referred to the handwriting expert, Mr. Ghulam Abbas Jafferi whose report is in the affirmative. He deposed inter alia as under:- "The disputed writings were marked as A/3 and A/4, and the disputed signatures were marked as B/1 and B/2 and the standard writings of Shah Nawaz Bullo were marked as A/1, A/2-I to 2-II/XI and also B-4. The examination and comparison of the standard and, the disputed writing and signatures reveal that the individual characteristics were in agreement with each other. I produce my opinion and the photo copy of charts as Exh.7-A. I also produce challan as Exh.7-B. I also produce standard writing as Exh.7-C."
8. ' The five witnesses named above have fully supported the prosecution case. P.W.1 Fakhruddin is the Office Superintendent, Director of College Hyderabad who had conducted inquiry in the matter with Rashid Ali Pathan before the case was sent up for trial. He has produced cash book and referred to the signatures of the appellant and has shown the actual amounts received by the appellant but deposited less, as will be evident from the following details:- S. No.Challan No.Date of creditParticularsAmountDiscrepancy 14.1 23-11-1976 Tuition feeRs.288Rs.200 15.2 29-11-1976 -do- Rs. 216Rs. 200 16.1 11-12-1976 -do- Rs. 324Rs. 300 17.1 4-1-1977 -do- Rs. 216Rs. 200 20.1 19-2-1977 -do- Rs. 2376Rs. 2376 21.1 28-2-1977 -do- Rs. 72 Rs. 72 ' There are number of documents exhibited in the case showing that the signatures on Exh.2-A have been forged by the appellant as the signatures of the Principal. Several vouchers of depositing less amounts than what have been stated in the account book were produced as referred to in the judgment at pages 44 and 45 of the paper book. Relevant portion from the judgment at page 46 of the paper book, which in fact, is the reference by Mr. Ahmadullah Qureshi, Principal of the College to the Anti-Corruption Police, reads as under:- "Mr. Shah Nawaz former Senior Clerk of this College, on knowing that an Audit Inspection was expected in October 1977, prepared a list of challis showing money deposited in Government Treasury according to the challan tiles of this College. He managed to get this list and other list verified from Treasury Officer, Larkana, through forgery. He filed the copies of the challans under his own signature, got the money deposited in the bank through under-valued challans and made alterations in the office copies and got verified through forgery. Principal further writes in his letter that he remembers to have told Mr. Shah Nawaz, that it was open to suspicion to put his signatures on the cash book."
9. The above allegations of the Principal have been fully supported by the prosecution witnesses and the documents produced in the case. The evidence also shows that the appellant used to receive fees from the students and was thus acting as Cashier of the College.
10. ' As regards the evidence of the handwriting expert he, having compared the documents, has given his detailed opinion in the positive, which has rightly led A the learned Judge to believe that the appellant has made forgeries and interpolations in the various documents produced in evidence and by depositing less amounts through challans in the Government Treasury has misappropriated the amount of Rs,3,272. It is significant to note that the handwriting expert has not at all been cross-examined by the appellant who was represented through a counsel.
11. ' The second contention that the appellant was not a cashier and no entrustment of the college monies was made, with him, is without any force. The question whether he was holding the post of Cashier with the proper nomenclature is of little significance. Admittedly the appellant was senior clerk in the college and was assigned the job of receiving fees of the college from the students and, therefore, the entrustment of college money stands proved beyond doubt.
12. ' The third contention of the counsel that the Principal was equally involved in the case and that he had, in fact, received the amount from the appellant as loan, is of no avail to the appellant, firstly because he had no authority to part with the money to the Principal as loan in breach of his duty to deposit the fresh amounts opening in the Government treasury. It also amounts to misconduct under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and, secondly, if it was so, there was no need for making forgeries and interpolations in depositing the amounts in the Government Treasury challans and the cash book and vouchers/receipts etc. Learned counsel failed to furnish any explanation therefor. However, there is a reference in the judgment made by the learned trial Judge to hold the departmental inquiry against the Principal through the Director of Education.
13. Perhaps, the Principal tried to shield the appellant.
14. ' As regards the last submission of the counsel that the remaining sentence be remitted, the same has been vehemently opposed by the learned AA.-G. The offence under section 409, P.P.C. Is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years of either description and fine, whereas the offence under section 477-A is punishable with imprisonment of either description upto 7 years or fine or both and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act prescribes punishment of diprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or both. The learned trial Judge seems to have already taken a lenient view in the matter and has awarded lesser sentence. Merely the appellant's remaining in jail, after conviction, for certain period does not entitle him to the remission of the remaining sentence, and I am convinced that the offence has been proved by evidence against him and he has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Judge.
15. ' Now I propose to deal with the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the first cited case PLD 1964 Dacca 368 the appeal was allowed as the prosecution evidence regarding entrustment of property was held to be doubtful which is not the case here. This authority has, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case.
16. ' In the second case 1969 P Cr. L J 8 the dishonesty and fraud alleged to have been committed by the accused was found as not established, whereas in the instant case the forgeries and interpolations and misappropriation of money made by the appellant stands proved by ocular and documentary evidence.
17. ' In the third case 1973 P Cr. L J 1015 the absence of any record to show the amount of money handed over to the accused prevailed with the learned Court to allow the appeal, whereas in the instant case all the relevant documents have been produced and proved in the evidence to show the various amounts received by the appellant from the students as tuition fees of the college.
18. ' In the fourth case 1982 P Cr. L J 594 it was found that the prosecution had failed to produce any material evidence, which is contrary to the facts in the instant case.
19. On the question of expert evidence the counsel has referred to the last mentioned two cases listed at Nos. 5 and 6 PLD 1968 Kar. 875 and 1989 P Cr. L J 687. There is no cavil that handwriting expert's opinion needs corroboration and the handwriting expert's evidence alone does not warrant conviction because it is to be considered as a weak type of evidence. But the two cases referred to by the counsel have no application to the facts of the case before me inasmuch as the handwriting expert's evidence finds ample support from the ocular as well as documentary evidence on record.
20. ' For the aforesaid discussion, I find no force in the appeal which is dismissed.
21. ' The appellant is on bail, which is cancelled. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court which will take necessary measures to cause the appellant/convict arrested and sent to the jail to serve out the remaining sentence.