' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The two petitioners, who are real brothers, together with two other persons namely, Muhammad Rafique and Noor Muhammad, were tried by the Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, on charges under sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Noor Muhammad was acquitted. Muhammad Amir Shah and Muhammad Rafique were convicted of an offence under section 468 and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and fine. Muhammad Shah was convicted of an offence under section 419 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine. The three convicts filed a joint appeal in the High Court. A learned Single Judge upheld their convictions but reduced the periods of their substantive sentences of imprisonment to the periods already undergone. He however maintained their sentences of fine. The two petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Shah Nawaz Khan (PW-9) and Ghulam Sarwar Khan (PW-7) who were real brothers owned some land in village Oazi Wala of Tehsil Isa Khel. Their land was acquired by the Government and they were held entitled to receive compensations in the sum of Rs,18,043.50.
3. It was alleged by the prosecution that a power of attorney on behalf of shah Nawaz Khan and Ghulam Sarwar Khan was forged in favour of Noor Muhammad, the acquitted accused. This power of attorney was witnessed by Muhammad Amir Shah and Muhammad Rafique. On the basis of the said power of attorney Noor Muhammad received the cheques from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector. At the time of receiving the cheques he was identified by Muhammad Shah, petitioner. Noor Muhammad endorsed these cheques in favour of Muhammad Amir Shah. The two cheques were deposited in his account and a day later he withdrew Rs,18,000 from the Bank. On a complaint made by Shah Nawaz and Ghulam Sarwar that they had not received the amount of compensations, an inquiry was held and a case was registered against the petitioners and the other co-accused.
3. The petitioners and the co-accused pleaded not guilty at the trial. They denied the allegations of forging the power of attorney or receiving the cheques on the basis of that document.
4. So far as Muhammad Amir Shah is concerned, there was evidence available on the record to show that he had withdrawn the amount from the Bank. Thus, so far as he is concerned, leave is refused.
5. As regards Muhammad Shah, his conviction seems to be based entirely upon the opinion of a handwriting expert. A question arises whether it would be safe to rely upon the said opinion to find his conviction on a serious charge. To examine this question leave is granted to Muhammad Shah.