' SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, J.--- This consolidated appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-3- 1989 passed by Special Court (Offences in Banks), Karachi in Cases Nos. 7 of 1988, 7-A of 1988 and 8 of 1988 under section 468/471, P.P.C. Convicting appellant Mazhar Hussain Shah in all the three cases and sentencing him as under:-- {{TABLE TEXT}} Case No. Section Sentence 7 of 1988 Under section 468, P.P.C. 4 years. Under section 471, P.P.C. 1 year.
7-A of 1988 Under section 468, P.P.C. 4 years. Under section 471, P.P.C. 1 year.
8 of 1988 Under section 468, P.P.C. 4 years. Under section 471, P.P.C. 1 year. Plus fine of Rs.30,000 or further R.I. For six months {{TABLE TEXT}} ' All the substantive sentences are to run concurrently wheras the imprisonment in default of payment of fine is to run subsequently.
2. The facts are that the appellant/accused was a clerical employee of Income-tax Department, Karachi, and he had a PIS account with Habib Bank Ltd. J.P.M.C. Branch, Karachi (PLS Account No.11556-0) and he committed the following acts of fraud and forgery:
(a) Cheque No.D-919388 dated 21-3-1988 issued by Accountant-General Pakistan Revenue, Karachi and drawn on State Bank of Pakistan and in favour of Qamarul Hasan Zaidi for Rs.2,126.05 was fraudulently altered by the appellant whereby the amount was changed to Rs.20,00,000 and the name of the appellant was substituted for the name of the original beneficiary Qamarul Hasan Zaidi whereafter the appellant deposited the cheque in his PLS account.
(b) On or about 3rd April, 1988 he got hold of Cheque No.D-920231 drawn by Accountant-General Pakistan, Revenue, Karachi, on State Bank of Pakistan. Karachi and in favour of Ist Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Karachi and for a sum of Rs.6,018.56 and fraudulently altered the name of the beneficiary by substituting his own name and also fraudulently altered the amount from Rs.6,018.56 to Rs.60,618.56 and then deposited the cheque in his above-noted account.
(c) He deposited in his above-noted account Cheque No.D-918408 drawn by Accountant-General Pakistan Revenue, Karachi on the State Bank of Pakistan in favour of Mr. Javed Abdul Aziz and for Rs.4,324.25 but after substituting his own name for the name of Mr. Javed Abdul Aziz and changing the amount from Rs.4,324.25 to Rs.14,324.25.
3. The defence of the appellant is of pure and simple denial. According to him, he had gone to the Habib Bank to draw his pay when he was detained by the bank staff and later on handed over to officers of Income-tax Department who, in turn, handed him over to F.I.A. Which falsely involved him in these cases.
4. In support of the case the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. P.W.1 Jamil Ahmed Naqvi, P.W.2 Javed Ata, P.W.3 Syed Anis Ahmed, P.W.4 Hasan Athar Bilgrami, P.W.5 Aijaz Ali Khan and P.W.6 Syed Iqbal Ahmed are the officers of the bank who proved that the appellant deposited in his account the three forged cheques. P.W.7 Aijazuddin Qureshi is an Income-tax Officer, P.W.8 Rehmatullah and P.W.9 Habibur Rehman are Supervisors in Income-tax Department and they had taken part in the investigation of the case on departmental level. P.W.10 Mr. Maqsoodul Haq is an Accounts Officer, P.W.11 Danish Raza is a Cashier and P.W.12 Syed Asim Tabraiz an Assistant Accountant-General in the office of Accountant-General, Pakistan Revenue, who proved the name of the original beneficiaries of the cheques and their original amounts. P.W.13 Mr. Qamrul Hasnain Zaidi is also an Income-tax Officer who testified that the appellant was working in his office as Lower Division Clerk and it was his duty to take the bills of Accountant-General Pakistan Revenue Office and to receive cheques from there. P.W.14 is Mr. Liaquat Ali Leghari, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax before whom the appellant had made extra-judicial confession.
P.W.15 Zaheer Hussain and P.W.16 Muhammad Afzal are employees of Accountant-General of Pakistan Revenue who proved the original condition in which the cheques were issued and how they were later on fraudulently altered. P.W.17 Sifat Ali Agha is Sub-Inspector F.I.A. And P.W.20 Wali Muhammad Saheto is Inspector F.I.A. Who had conducted investigation.
' P.W.19 Mr. Khalid Rasool is the Handwriging Expert who proved that the forgeries on the cheques were in the handwriting of the appellant. There is thus overwhelming evidence against the accused/appellant and there is no reason to doubt the testimony of Bank Officers and Officers of Income-tax Department (appellant's own office). No motive could be imputed to them for falsely involving the appellant in these cases. Learned counsel of the appellant also did not seriously contest the conviction of the appellant. We have gone through the impugned judgment and find it well-reasoned and based upon proper appreciation of evidence.
5. Learned counsel of the appellant, however, argued that evidence was recorded in one case whereas carbon copies were kept on the record of the other two cases and this procedure was illegal in view of the decision reported in State v. Qalandar Khan PLD 1971 Pesh.
119. However, we find that learned Presiding Officer of Banking Court has applied his mind independently to the facts and circumstances of each case and although all the three cases have been disposed of by one judgment, no miscarriage of justice has resulted and the appellant has not been adversely affected. We would, therefore, repel the contention of the learned counsel and uphold the conviction.
6. As for the quantum of the sentence, learned counsel of the appellant pointed out that in Case No.7 of 1988, forged cheese of Rs.20 Lakh was accepted by the Habib Bank but was dishonored by State Bank on the grounds of cuttings and overwriting's whereas in Case No.7-A of 1988, the forged cheque of Rs.60,018.56 was not accepted by Habib Bank itself when presented by the appellant for deposit in his account because of overwriting's and cuttings and thus in these two cases no loss was suffered either by Habib Bank or State Bank and that it was only in Case No.8 of 1988 that the forged cheque for Rs.14,324.25 was not only accepted by Habib Bank but was also honoured by State Bank and its proceeds were credited to appellant's account and the appellant had later withdrawn the amount but this loss to the bank had already been made good by Tariq Hussain, maternal-uncle of the appellant, who had deposited back this amount in the bank on 18-4-1988 as proved by the evidence of P.W.1 Mr. Jamil Ahmed Naqvi, Manager of the concerned branch of Habib Bank, and by seizure memo. Exh.2-G and that even in the third case no loss had been suffered by any of the banks and argued that under these circumstances the sentences awarded are excessive. He referred us to Munir Shah v. The State NLR 1987 Criminal (sic) and two unreported judgments of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1987 and Criminal Appeal No.35 of 1987. In the reported case, it was held that actual loss should be primary consideration for the imposition of fine. In Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1987, it was held that since the offence was committed prior to the coming into force of the Ordinance, the requirements contained in section 6(3) of the Ordinance, enjoining the imposition of fine of not less than twice of the amount embezzled, would not apply. In Criminal Appeal No.67 of 1987, the facts wherein are identical with the present case, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from four years' R.I. To two years' R.I. And while the fine of Rs.15,000 was maintained, the imprisonment in default of payment thereof was reduced from six months to three months. We have Considered this aspect. As for the appellant having not derived any pecuniary benefit, it is clear from the record that in one case (Case No. 8 of 1988) he did derive such benefit although the loss sustained by the bank was made good by the maternal-uncle of the appellant and in other two cases, if the appellant did not derive any benefit, it was not due to any good intentions on his part but due to the vigilance of State Bank and Habib Bank. Even so, the sentence awarded to the appellant appears to be excessive in the light of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1987. We would, therefore, reduce the sentence, in all the three cases, under section 468, P.P.C. From four years to two years and under section 471, P.P.C. From one year to six months and the amount of fine is reduced from rupees thirty thousand to rupees ten thousand and in default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo further R.I. Of two months. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.