' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against judgment dated 19- 2-1992 of Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, whereby Criminal Appeal No, 212 of 1991 filed by the appellant herein is dismissed with modification that his sentence was reduced to that already undergone by him after giving him benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant was working as Manager of National Bank of Pakistan at Kotdiji and was transferred from there on 21-5-1989. After the said transfer, it was discovered that there were 11 instances of misappropriation in the accounts of the customers and in that connection enquiry was held and report was lodged with F.I.A. And finally case was registered against the appellant who faced trial before the Special Court (Offences in Banks) at Karachi, and was convicted for offence under section 408, P.P.C. And sentenced to R.I. For 3 years and fine of Rs,4 lac or in default R.I. For 6 months. It was directed that out of the fine if recovered, Rs,1,83,000 were to be paid to the bank.
3. In the trial Court appellant was charged for offences under sections 408, 468, 471, 477-A, P.P.C.
And in support of the charges prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Out of 11 instances of misappropriation, only one could be proved against the appellant by the trial Court and in that instance there was misappropriation of Rs,1,83,000 on the basis of which trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under section 408, P.P.C. And sentenced him to R.I. For 3 years and fine of Rs,4 lacs or in default R.I. For 6 months. Against the conviction and sentence appellant filed appeal in the High Court which is dismissed in the terms stated above, by the judgment which is impugned in this appeal.
4. Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant at the very outset of the hearing informed us that appellant is out of prison as his sentence was reduced to that already undergone by him when his appeal was dismissed by the High Court after he was awarded facility of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. And reduction of sentence. His main grievance is that with regard to the only one item of misappropriation alleged against the appellant, the finding of the trial Court was not clear and was couched in language which indicated that either appellant or Mubarak or both of them had misappropriated amount of Rs,1,83,000. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in such circumstances there was no conclusive proof that case was proved against the appellant beyond doubt.
5. We have examined the record in the light of contention raised before us. This contention was raised by the learned counsel before the Appellate Bench of the High Court also. We agree with the High Court that judgment of the trial Court does not convey the sense which is assumed by the learned counsel for the appellant in construing thet observation mentioned above. Perusal of the record shows that item of Rs,1,83,000 is separately dealt with by the trial Court in paragraph 39 of the judgment. In that connection deposition of P.W. Gul Muhammad was considered who is a retired Assistant Commissioner and holder of Accounts Nos. 87 and 19. He issued cheque for transfer of this amount from Account No, 87 to Account No,
19. This cheque was produced by P.W.1 Dhani Bux. P.W.2 Gul Muhammad identified signature of appellant on pay-in-slip and its counterfoil.
P.W.1 Dhani Bux has also identified those signatures to be of appellant.
6. P.W.2 Gul Muhammad also deposed that he deposited a demand draft for Rs,15,000 to be credited in his Account No,
19. Pay-in-slip was signed by the appellant, who denied the same in his statement in the trial Court and claimed that it was forged by someone. The other signature on the slip Exh.2/B appeared to the trial Court to be of P.W.14 Mubarak Hussain, who also stated that his signature was forged. Gul Muhammad admitted that bank paid him that amount. In such circumstances observation was made by the trial Court which is not to be construed as is claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant because evidence on the record clearly shows that there is ample proof that so far misappropriation of the amount of Rs,1,83,000 is concerned, the same is supported by pay-in-slip and counterfoil signed by the appellant and no other person. Name of Mubarak Hussain is mentioned in respect of another demand draft for Rs,15,000.
7. For facts and reasons stated above, we are unable to find any flaw or B legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, which is hereby upheld and this appeal is dismissed bearing no merits.