The appellant was convicted by the learned Special Judge (Central), Karachi, Camp at Hyderabad, for offences under section 468, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to undergo R. I. For one year and a fine of Rs. 200 or to default to suffer R. I. For two months more. Aggrieved by the judgment of the conviction and sentence, he has come in appeal.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 31-8-1967, a money order for Rs. 90 was sent from Peshawar to one Muhammad Iqbal at Wah Cantt. It is alleged that the same money order had reached Hyderabad. Where the amount was changed from Rs. 90 to Rs. 160 and even the name of the payee was changed from Muhammad Iqbal to one Israr Ahmed. It appears that for certain reasons the suspicion of the Sub-Postmaster of Latifabad Branch was aroused, and he made a reference to the originating Post Office as well as to the General Post Office at Hyderabad, and when the realities came to light, he sent a report to the S. H. O., Latifabad Police Station. The S. H. O.
Arranged a trap which was attended by H. C. Nasim Hussain Shah and two mashirs. One Israr Ahmad, a typist in the office of Co Axial Section of Telephone Department, was arrested by the Police -as soon as he had received the money order. Subsequently, the appellant also was apprehended by the Police as he was working as the dealing clerk in the General Post Office, Hyderabad. Later on, his specimen signatures were obtained in the presence of a Magistrate and sent to the Handwriting Expert. The latter reported that the over-writings and interpolations in the money order form were in the hand of the present appellant. As a result of this report, the case was sent up after due investigation against the appellant and Israr Ahmed, the recipient of the money order in question.
3. The appellant denied having anything to do with the forgery of the other allegations made against him. His stand was that he had been on medical leave from 4-9-1967 up to 19-9-1967; and that he had been involved maliciously, as the Sub-Post Master, Latifabad Branch bore a grudge against him. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence, nor-- chose to appear as his own witness.
4. The prosecution supported its case by about weight witnesses in all. The learned Special Judge, being of the opinion that there was nothing to establish that there was any criminal conspiracy between the appellant and Israr Ahmad in the absence of any other evidence apart from the receipt of the money order, gave Israr Ahmed the benefit of doubt; but convicted the present appellant, as according to him, apart from the evidence of the Handwriting Expert, there were certain corroborating circumstances.
5. The material witnesses in the case will be Nazir Muhammad, the Inspector Post Offices, Samar Hussain, a clerk from the Hyderabad Post Office and Azizullah. The evidence of Azizullah will not be very much relevant so far as the present'-appellant is concerned because all that he states is that the money order had been received by the co-accused, since acquitted. 1 he salient features of this particular case to note, however, are that there is no evidence on the record to show that the money-order in question, that is from Peshawar, was received at the Hyderabad General Post Office where the appellant was working. It might also be mentioned that the appellant had taken the charge of his duty as a clerk dealing with money orders only on 15-R-1967, and admittedly, he was on medical leave from 4,9-1967 up to 19-9-1967. The fact also remains that on the showing of Samar Hussain, he had not signed the Muster Roll even on 2-9-1967. The despatch of the money order, on the showing of the prosecution, is only on 30-8-1967. The witness had admitted earlier in the categorical terms, that the money order could be sent directly to the Sub-Post Office from out stations. He had also admitted that there is an entry about the receipt of it at Latifabad Branch.
Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the Latifabad Branch had received the money order in question from the General Post Office, Hyderabad. Nazir Muhammad has stated that the appellant, though on medical leave from 4th September, kept coming to the office in between. However, that was not his version before the Police, as duly brought on the record.
Admittedly, there is nothing in writing with which the appellant could be confronted. All that we are left with are just surmises. Even the finding of the learned trial Judge is in these words "it is therefore likely that accused Muhammad Anwar could have an approach to this money order Exh. 7 up to 6- 9-1967 in the M. P. O., Hyderabad". So all that we find is that the appellant could have an approach, and that also is qualified by the word "likely" which precedes. The sheet-anchor of the prosecution case is the evidence as furnished by the Handwriting Expert. It is a trite proposition of law that the evidence of the Handwriting Expert is to be taken with caution Al and cannot be implicitly relied upon unless properly corroborated. I enquired from the learned Assistant Advocate-General as to what was the corroborating evidence against the appellant. All that he could say was that he was the clerk concerned, but as will be noticed, there is nothing to indicate that the money order had reached the General Post Office at all.
6. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant, has referred to some citations in regard to the nature of the evidence of the Handwriting Expert, but is not necessary to deal with the same as there can be no two opinions on the subject. The fact also remains that there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant was at all known or had any association with the co-accused, since acquitted. This aspect of the case has been dilated upon by the learned trial Judge, while exonerating the co-accused. It stands to reason that if the benefit thereof could go to the co- accused the benefit thereof will accrue also to the appellant. If there was nothing to establish that Israr Ahmed had anything to do with the criminal conspiracy, it is anybody's guess as to how the appellant would be interested in making a present of the amount involved in the money order, to somebody in whom he was not interested. The appellant was convicted on a very slender basis indeed, for which there appears to be no justification. At any rate, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
7. I will, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence, and allow the appeal. He is on bail, and the bail bond furnished by him, stands cancelled.