1. KAMAL MANSUR ALAM, J.--- The appellant, Shamim Ahmed, was tried alongwith Muhammad Hasnain son of Muhammad Abbas and Abdul Jabbar son of Bhorey Khan, by the Special Court (Offences in Banks) at Karachi, for offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 and 109, P.P.C.
2. The charge on which they were tried is as under: "That you' all hatched a plan to defraud the BISE Branch of National Bank of Pakistan; That in pursuance (if the said plan, you accused Shamim Ahmed applied for and dishonestly obtained from the above branch a loan of Rupees Four Lacs; That the said loan was obtained by you accused Shamim Ahmed on furnishing to the Bank as security (i) Property documents in respect of Plot No.D-63, Block H, North Nazimabad, (ii) permission bearing NO.A/O/NN/84, dated 31-1-1985 to mortgage the said property and (i.e) search certificate dated 3l-1-1985, which were bogus and forged, which fact was within your knowledge; That the said forged documents were prepared by you accused Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Rizwan; That from possession of you accused Muhammad Hussain 30 number of stamps and three copies of blank lease deeds were recovered on 17-12-1988; And that you accused Abdul Jabbar, being the Manager of the BISE Branch of National Bank of Pakistan processed the said loan application of accused Shamim Ahmed and aided and abetted the said loan of Rupees four lacs by accepting the forged documents presented by him and deliberately avoiding to comply with the Bank's instructions that proper documents to secure the advance be obtained, that the property be free from all encumbrances and that such report for last 12 years be obtained; And you have thereby committed offences punishable under section 420/468/471/109, P.P.C. And within the cognizance of this Court."
3. It appears that appellant Shamim Ahmed opened an account on 18-3-1985 in the BISE Branch of National Bank of Pakistan in the name of Messrs Waseem Packages as its Proprietor, that on 11-4- 1985 he applied to the said bank for a loan of Rs.5,00,000, that as security for the said loan the appellant offered to mortgage his Shops Nos.3/86 and 3/87, Commercial Area, Liaquatabad, and Plot No.D-63, Block H, North Nazimabad, Karachi, and Hypothecation of Stocks of raw material to be purchased out of the proposed loan, that the loan application was processed by the then Manager of BISE Branch of National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi, that one Abdul Jabbar (who too was an accused as stated above but was acquitted by the learned Special Court) recommended to the Senior Vice-President of the Bank a credit limit of Rs.4,00,000 in favour of the appellant, that on the basis of the proposal of the said Manager and the documents accompanying the same the competent authority in the Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.4 lacs to the appellant for a period of 12 month who executed registered Mortgage Deed in respect of the aforesaid Shop No.3/86 and Plot No.D-63, that disbursement of the entire amount of the said loan was made to the appellant through six cheques drawn by him, that on expiry of the loan period the appellant was required to repay the loan, that the appellant requested for time for the repayment, that in the meanwhile the new Manager Sirajuddin of the said Branch made enquiries regarding the title of the appellant in respect of the properties that he had mortgaged and found that Plot No.D-63 had not been leased by the K.D.A. In favour of the appellant whereupon he made a report to the F:I.A., that the matter was entrusted to S.I. Niamatullah who incorporated the said report in the F.I.R. Recorded by him on 3-i1-1988, that the S.I. Niamatullah recorded the statements of a number of persons and arrested the appellant and the other accused Muhammad Hasnain on 17-12-1988 and the third accused Abdul Jabbar on 18-1-1989 and seized under Seizure Memos. Exhs.2/Q, 2/R and 2/S, various documents produced by the said Sirajuddin and said to have recovered certain articles from the house of accused Muhammad Hasnain's father-in-law that signatures of the appellant were also sent to the handwriting expert for examination and report and on receipt of such report challaned the accused including the appellant.
4. During the proceedings before the learned Special Court a number of witnesses were examined and the statement of the appellant was also recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he has admitted the various allegations in answers to the questions and has desired not to lead any defence. The appellant had accepted that he has not repaid the amount of loan. Ultimately by the impugned judgment the learned Special Court convicted the appellant under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. And sentenced him for each of the offences to R.I. For 4 years and: to pay a fine of Rs.8,00,000 and in default of payment whereof to suffer R.I. For six months. The three sentences of 4 years' R.I. Under sections 420, 468 and 471.P.P.C. Were to run concurrently while the sentence of six months' R.I. In default of payment of fine to run after the expiry of the substantive sentences of imprisonment. The appellant was given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
5. Before us, Mr. Rashid A. Rizvi has stated that he does not want to contest the matter 6n merits and places the appellant at the mercy of this Court, he referred to a D.B. Decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.97 of 1990 and pleaded that the reasons which weighed with the Hon'ble Judges of the D.B. In that case equally apply to the present case except that the appellant has not been able to repay the amount of loan and, therefore, prays that we take into consideration that this is the first offence and the appellant deserves leniency. The learned counsel states that the sentence awarded to the appellant is too severe and excessive and calls for interference by this Court.
6. We have considered the plea of the learned counsel and following the aforesaid D.B. Decision consider that the reduction of sentence to 2 years and conversion of it in simple imprisonment would be appropriate in the case, however, in view of the fact that the appellant has failed to repay the loan the fine of Rs.8,00,000 and sentence of six months in default of payment of the fine will continue but this too be of simple imprisonment.
7. With this modification in the quantum and nature of sentences the appeal is otherwise dismissed.