SH. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR, J.--- The appellant has filed an appeal against the order of the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore (Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram, J.), dated 4-5-1991 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under section 477-A, P.P.C. And under section 5(2), Act II of 1947 rind sentenced him to one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs.1 lac or in default 6 months' R.I. On two counts under section 477-A, P.P.C. And under section 5(2), Act 11 of 1947. Half of the fine, if covered, was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant Bank.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was tried in absentia under section 5(4) of Ordinance IX of 1984 as he failed to appear in spite of the proceedings taken against him. Mirza Nazir Ahmed, co---accused appeared before the learned trial Court and was charged under section 109, P.P.C. For the abetment read with section 477-A, P.P.C. The prosecution in support of its case produced four witnesses. Anns Ahmed appeared as P.W.1 who produced cheques Exh.P.W.1/1-2 and vouchers EXh.P.W.l/3 to Exh.P.W.l/7 before the Investigating Officer, which were taken into possession, vide memo. EXh.P.W.l/8. He also stated that Mirza Nazir Ahmed, co- accused did not pay Rs.43,000 to the complainant-Bank in spite of his undertaking. Muhammad Asghar (P.W.2) deposed that in July, 1987, he was officiating as Manager, he noticed three entries debiting Rs.10,000 each of the total sum of Rs.30,000 to National Bank of Pakistan, Chappar Branch and crediting the said amount in Account No.128 in the name of Mirza Nazir Ahmed accused. He also noticed another debit entry of Rs.13,000 against National Bank of Pakistan Chappar Branch and crediting the said amount in Account No.128. He brought this fact to the notice of higher authorities and sent complaint Exh.P.W.2/1 for registration of the case. Abdul Qayyum (P.W.3) investigated the case. Muhammad Sarwar (P.W.4) Handwriting Expert stated that the questioned signatures Exh.1/B on cheque Exh.P.W.1/2 and questioned signatures Exh.1/A on cheque Exh.P.W.1/1 were similar when compared with the specimen signatures Exh.P.W.3/2-3 in the handwriting of Mirza Muhammad Nazir accused.
3. Placing reliance on the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant and gave him the sentence mentioned above.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant on merits, rightly so, as there is overwhelming oral as well as documentary evidence on the record against the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has only made one submission, that the sentence awarded to the appellant is a bit harsh and needs consideration.
5. The learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment.
6. We have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and find that the evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused, hence there is no force in this appeal, so far it relates to the merits, hence the appeal is dismissed on merits.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to this aspect of the case, what should be the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of the case, especially when the appellant is an educated person and is willing to make payment of fine imposed upon him by the learned trial Court.
8. We find the case for reduction of the sentence of imprisonment is made out, so we direct that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to one already undergone but we maintain the sentence of fine imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Court.
9. We have been informed in the Court that the appellant has deposited the fine with the Treasurer of this Court, in this view of the matter, we direct that the appellant be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
S.A./M-235/L