' Appellant Sarwar Khan was tried along with two other persons, by name Noor Muhammad and Faiz Muhammad, by the learned Special Judge, Central, Karachi, in two separate cases involving offences punishable under section 420/468/471/120-B, P. P. C., read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and while the two co-accused were acquitted, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant in both the cases under section 468 read with section 471, P.
P. C.. And in each case awarded him R. I. For 6 months and also imposed on him a fine of Rs, 1,000, in default whereof the appellant was directed to undergo further R. I. For 6 months. The appellant has appealed to this Court to impugn his convictions and sentences. Both the appeals will be disposed of by this judgment.
2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that on 13-9.66, the Post Master Incharge of the G. P.
0., Karachi, gave Inspector of Post Offices, Muhammad Mustafa Khan, M.
0. No, 1931, dated 3-9.1966, for Rs, 1,500, issued from Lahore, and payable to one Muhammad Sadiq, along with a memo. And two telegrams, with the directions to trap the payee, as the M.
0. Had obviously been forged. The reason for believing that the M.
0. Was forged was that the maximum amount for which a M.
0. Could be issued is Rs, 1,000. The two telegrams given by the Post Master to Muhammad Mustafa Khan further supported the view that the M.
0. Was forged as the telegram of the Post Master, Lahore, was to the effect that the M. O. In question had been issued for an amount of Rs, 40 only and that it was payable to Afz al Ahmed.
3. Muhammad Mustafa Khan first attempted to seek the aid of police, but not succeeding in his efforts in this behalf, he set up a plan to trap the payee. In pursuance of that plan, postman Abdul Salem contacted one Abdul Aziz c/o whose address the payee was to be found. Abdul Aziz informed the postman thit the payee would be available at about 1-00 p.m. Accordingly, Abdul Salem contacted Abdul Aziz at about 1-15 p.m. The same day and found appellant Sarwar Khan with him who posed to be Muhammad Sadiq. The appellant put his signature as Muhammad Sadiq on the M.
0. Form and he was identified as Muhammad Sadiq by Abdut 'Aziz. At this juncture, postman Abdul Sulam gave the pre-arranged signal, at which, Muhammad Mustafa Khan, who was accompanied by a mashir, Muhammad Ikram, ran up to the but of Abdul Aziz and told him that the M. O. Was forged one and that he had been deputed to locate the gang responsible for the forging of M. Os.
And cheating the Government. It is alleged that the appellant got very much perturbed on learning of the identity of Muhammad Mustafa Khan and the fact that their gang had been discovered and told the Inspector that he was prepared to speak the truth and that the leader of the gang was R.
M. S. Sorter, Ncor Muhammad, who used to bring the money orders, which were thereafter forged and payments taken on the strength of them from different Post Offices. The appellant also admitted that his name was not Muhammad Sadiq but Sarwar Khan and volunteered to take the postal party to the house of Noor Muhammad. Muhammad Mustafa Khan sent for Muhammad Idris, Inspector of Town Post Offices, and accompanied by Muhammad Idris, postman Abdul Salam, Muhammad Ikram and the appellant, went in two taxies to the house of Noor Muhammad which was pointed out by the appellant. It is alleged that Noor Muhammad, on interrogation by Muhammad Mustafa Khan, admitted his participation in the game of forgery of money orders and brought out from his house a trunk which contained 22 money orders, out of which two money orders had their relevant entries erased. He also produced before the Postal Inspector a packet containing the two bundles of chemicals used for erasing ink writing. Noor Muhammad also produced before the Postal Inspector two chits containing the record of the payments received by them on forged money orders. At the suggestion of the Postal Inspector, Noor Muhammad signed on all the money orders, including the two chits containing the accounts of the money orders payments. The postal authorities thereafter contacted Mr. Majid, the Head Master of Raskin Secondary School, in Nazimabad, where the appellant is alleged to have received an amount of Rs, 500 on the basis of a forged money order. Postal Inspector Muhammad Mustafa Khan also contacted the Proprietor of Babar Studios through which concern, co-accused Faiz Muhammad is said to have received moneys from the postal authorities through the forged M. Os. After making some further enquiries, Muhammad Mustafa Khan took the appellant and the two co-accused to Aram Bagh Police Station where he lodged his first information report the same day. He also produced before the police the M. Os. And the two bottles for ink washing secured from the possession of coaccused Noor Muhammad.
4. Criminal Appeal No, 337/73 is in respect of the appellant's conviction for the forged M.
0. No, 1855, dated 25-8.1956, for R9. 500, while Criminal Appeal No, 338/73 is in respect of his conviction for the forged M. O. No, 1931, dated 3.9-1966, for Rs, 1,500, and forged Khanewal M.
0. No, 180 for Re.
650.
5. In respect of appellant's conviction relating to the first money order, the main evidence is of Muhammad Mustafa Khan. Muhammad Idris, Postman Mahboob, Mumtaz Ali (Sub-Postmaster, Sargodha), Anwar Muhammad (Sub-Postmaster, Nazimabad) and the handwriting expert.
6. In respect of the appellant's conviction relating to M.
0. No, 1931, for Rs, 1,500, the main evidence relied upon by the trial Court was of Muhammad Mustafa Khan, Muhammad Idris, Mr. Akram of the Typing Institute, Postman Abdul Salem, Fazal Muhammad and the handwriting expert. Reliance was also placed by the trial Court on the signed statements made by the appellant before Postal Inspector Muhammad Mustafa Khan.
7. The case of the appellant was of complete denial. He, however, was unable to explain why the P.
Ws. Had deposed against him. No defence was led by the appellant.
8. An examination of the evidence in the case leaves no room for doubt that the three money orders in qaestion, in respect of which the appellant has been convicted, namely Sargodha M. O.
No, 1855, Khanewal M. O. No, 1801 and Lahore M.
0. No, 1931 were tampered with and are forged documents. As regards Sargodha M. O. No, 1855, P. W.
Mumtaz Ali, who at the relevant time was working as Sub-Post Master, Sargodha City Night Post Office, has stated thst this M.
0. Was issued by him on 28-11-1966 and that it bears his signature and the genuine stamp of his office but the name of the payee has been altered from Safir Tarkia, in Pakistan, to Shah Sarwar Khan, Nazimabad, and the amount for which the M.
0. Was issued has been altered from Rs, 10 to Rs, 500. In support of his evidence he has produced-
(o) book of M.
0. Receipts from S. No, 1751 to 2000, including receipt for M. O. No, 1855, dated 25-8-1966, showing that it was for an amount of Rs, 10 and issued in the name of Safir Tarkia in Pakistan ; and
(b) M.
0. Journal, dated 25-8-1966, containing the entry for M. O. No, 1855, showing that it was issued for an amount of Rs, 10.
9. So far as Khanewal M.
0. No, 1801 is concerned, which was altered to make payable to Muhammad Sadik, Karachi, an amount of Rs, 650, P. W. Fazal Muhammad, Clerk in the Post Office, Khanewal, has produced-
(a) book of M.
0. Receipts from Serial Nos. 1751 to 2000, containing receipt for M.
0. No, 1801, dated 25-8.1967, showing that it was issued for Rupee One, and was payable to "Apajan" ; and
(b) M.
0. Issue journal containing the entries regarding M.
0. Receipt No, 1801, stowing that it was drawn for an amount of rupee one and the amount was to be paid at Karachi.
10. As regards the Lahore M.
0. No, 1931, which was made payable to Muhammad Sadik, the fact of its being tampered with and forged has been established through-
(a) the evidence of Postal Inspector Mustafa Khan, who has deposed that this M. O. Was obviously forged as under the postal rules no M.
0. Can be for an amount exceeding Rs, one thousand ; and
(b) the Telegsam from G. P.
0., Lahore to G. P.
0., Karachi to the effect that the said M.
0., which was issued on 3rd September was for an amount of Rs, 40, and the payee was Mae Ahmad.
11. In addition to the above pieces of evidence, there is the testimony or Postal Inspector, Muhammad Mustafa Khan, that the appellant had admitted to him that to his knowledge the three M. Os, bad been forged, supported by the signed statement made to the witness by the appellant wherein he had admitted-
(a) that he had produced himself as the payee of forged Lahore M.
0. No, 1931, dated 3.9-1966, for Rs, 1500, by giving himself out as Muhammad Sadik whereas his actual name is Sarwar Khan ; and
(b) that he had also signed as payee and received payments on the forged M. Os. For Rs, 500 and Rs, 600, respectively made pay able to Shah Sarwar Khan and Muhammad Sadik.
12. There is also tangible evidence to show that the appellant dishonestly obtained amounts of Rs, 500 and Rs, 650 respectively on the two forged M. Os. 1855 and 1801 and so attempted to obtain an amount of Rs, 1,500 on the forged Lahore M.
0. No, 1931. Postal Clerk, Mahboob Khan, has testified that Sargodah M.
0. No, 1855 for Rs, 500, along with the cash, was given to him for payment to the payee, and that he had paid the amount to the appellant who had signed on the M. O. As Shah Sarwar Khan, In an identification test held by a Magistrate this witness was correctly able to pick out the appellant as the person to whom the said amount of Rs, 500 was delivered by him and who had signed on M.
0. No, 1855 as Shah Sarwar Khan. The signature of the payee on this M. O. Was compared by the handwriting expert, Mukhtar Ahmad, with specimen signatures of the appellant taken before a Magistrate and in his testimony the handwriting expert has deposed that the two sets of signatures are similar.
13. As regards Lahore M.
0. No, 1931 for R. 1,500, the amount of this M. O. Was given to the appellant by postman Abdul Salam and the appellant single on the M.
0. As payee, Muhammad Sadik, Postman Abdul Salam was not examined, but Po tal Inspector Muhammad Mustafa, who had arranged the trap and Ikramuddin, Proprietor of American Type Writer Co , who had accompanied Muhammad Mustafa Khan, were examined. P. W. Iltramuddin has deposed that at the request of P.W. Muhammad Mustafa Khan, he bad accompanied the latter and Postman Salem to a place in Ratan Talao, where within his presence and view the appellant had signed on the M.
0. As Md. Sadik and one Abdul Asia, who was also present there, had identified the appellant as Muhammad Sadik, and had signed the M.
0. In token of the identification. P. W. Muhammad Mustafa Khan has deposed that as soon as he received the pre-arranged signal from Postman Abdul Salem, which was to be given as soon as the payee had put down his signature on the M.
0., he rushed up to, the appellant who admitted his guilt and told him that Noor Muhammad, Sorter R. M. S., was the gang leader and he used to bring money orders, which were being forged and then payment received from different Post Offices. In his written statement to P. W. Muhammad Mustafa Khan, the appellant has also admitted that he had "produced himself as the payee of Lahore M. O.
No, 1931, dated 3-9-1966, for Rs, 1,500, which is payable to Muhammad Sadik c/o Abdul Aziz".
14. As regards Khanewal M.
0. No, 1801 for Rs, 650, again the postman who paid the amount to the appellant has not been examined, but the fact of payment has been established through two separate pieces of evidence, namely t-
(a) evidence of Handwriting Expert, Mukhtar Ahmad, who has deposed that the signature of payee on this M. O. Resembles the specimen signature of the appellant taken before a Magistrate ; and
(b) signed statement given by the appellant to P. W. Muhammad Mustafa Khan wherein he has admitted that he had received Rs, 650 as payee of the M.
0. By signing it as the payee, Md. Sadik.
15. I have given careful consideration to the above pieces of evidence and am of the opinion that they are true and reliable and were rightly believed by the learned trial Court.
16. As already pointed out, the appellant was fully aware of the fact that the three M. Os. In question were forged documents. By accepting monies on the basis of Sargodha M. O. No, 1855 and Khanewal M.
0. No, 1801 and attempting to obtain money on the basis of Lahore M.
0. 1931 he clearly fraudulently used the said M. Os. As genuine, having the knowledge that the M. Os.
Were forged. Further, by signing on the M. Os. Nos. 1931 and 1801 as Muhammad Sadik and on Sargodha M. O. No, 1855 as Shah Samar Khan, when in fact he was not any such person, but his real name is Malik Sarwar Khan, the appellant further committed forgery in respect of the 3 M. Os.
17. 1 am accordingly of the opinion that the learned Special Judge rightly convicted the appellant of offences under sections 368 and 371, P. P. C. In respect of the above 3 M. Os. Looking to the gravity of the offence: established to have been committed by the appellant, the sentences awarded to him do not call for any reduction. I, therefore, find no merit in the appeal, and while upholding the conviction and sentences of the appellant, dismiss the two appeals. The appellant is on bail. He should surrender to his bail and serve out the remainder of his sentences.