This is an appeal against the order dated 24-3-1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Central, Lahore, whereby he had convicted Riaz Ali accused/appellant on the charge under section 409, P.P.C. And had sentenced him to three years' R. I. And Rs.1,25,000 and in case of default to undergo imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under sections 468/471, P.P.C. And sentenced to three years' R.I. For each offence and also to pay fine of Rs.1.25,000. He was further convicted under section 5(2)1947 (P.C.A) and sentenced to three years' R.I. The learned trial Court, however, observed that the sentences of fine shall be considered as Rs.1,25,600 for all the offences jointly.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Riaz Ali appellant alongwith his co-accused was booked in case F.I.R. No.3 of 1992 dated 3-2-1992 registered in Police Station, F.I.A., Crimes Circle, Lahore, under sections 409, 420, 468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2)47, P.C.A.
3. After investigation the challan was submitted against both of them. The formal charge was framed against them by the learned trial Court on 3-1-1994 and to which they pleaded not guilty and hence the prosecution was asked to produce its evidence.
4. At the stage of recording of statements of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court observed in its order dated 3-5-1996 that it was a case of no evidence to the extent of Mehboob Ahmad Shah accused and thus he was acquitted under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
5. The facts in brief are that Muhammad Anwar, Assistant Director, Inspection, Regional Directorate, National Savings, Gujranwala, sent a complaint Exh.P.A. To the Director, F.I.A., Government of Pakistan, Lahore to the effect that the client of National Savings Centre-II, Kutchery Road, Gujrat namely Ahmad Khan son of Sultan Ali, village and post office Ali Pur Sharqi, Tehsil and District Gujrat had informed that he had deposited an amount of Rs.90,000 and Rs.23,000 on 12-7-1990 and 25-7- 1990 respectively in his Savings Account No.SA-1287 in the said National Savings Centre. He was issued deposit Slips Nos.086218 and 086255 on 12-7-1990 and 25-7-1990 respectively for the amounts referred to above. The entries to that effect were also made in his Pass Book. However, the record available in the National Savings Centre revealed that against both the deposit credit slips afore-mentioned Rs.100 each was deposited on12-7-1990 and 25-7-1990.
According to the complaint, Mehboob Ahmad Shah, Officer-in-charge, National Savings Centre-II, Gujrat and Riaz Ali, co-sharer of the aforesaid Saving Centre had transacted the business and has signed the documents on those dates.
6. On the basis of the complaint, Exh.P.A. The formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 was registered and after the investigation challan was sent up to the Court.
7. After the accused were formally charged on 3-11-1994 the prosecution was asked to produce its evidence. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 6 P.Ws. Of them, P.W.6 is Sh. Zafar Mehmood, Inspector/Handwriting Expert, F.I.A., who stated that in the year 1992 he was posted in the Directorate of Technical F.I.A., Islamabad as Examiner of the questioned documents. On the request of the Deputy Director Crimes Circle, Lahore he had compared the signatures on the deposit slips and Exh.P.D. With specimen signatures of Riaz Ali as Ahmad Khan. These specimen signatures were obtained Exh.P.H./1-18. These deposit slips Exhs.P.C. And P.D. Were marked by him as Q/2 and Q/1 respectively. The specimen signatures of Handwriting Expert Exhs.P.H./1 to P.H./11 were marked by him as S/1 to S/18. He compared the handwriting and specimen signatures or documents Q/1 and Q/2 with the specimen; S/1 to S.A./18. He stated that the questioner handwriting/signatures on documents Q/1 and Q/2 were similar with the corresponding specimen handwriting/signatures on S/1 to S/18. The deposit slips Exh.P.C. Marked be him as Q/2 had signatures which were marked by him is Q/2 (a). However, he could no give any definite opinion about the signature Q/2 (a) on deposit slips Exh.P.C. And digits Q/3 of Pass Book Exh.P.E. He then prepare his report which is Exh.P.B.
8. P.W.1 is Muhammad Anwar, Assistant Director (Inspection), National Savings Accounts Office, Gujranwala. He has stated that on 14-4-1994 he was posted as Assistant Director (Hq), Regional Directorate of National Savings, Gujranwala and on the direction of the competent authority he had sent a report Exh.P.A. To the F.I.A. For registration of F.I.R. During the course of cross-examination he stated that the competent authority which had directed him to lodge the report was Director- General, National Savings, Islamabad and that he was nor personally aware of the facts of the case no he had personally verified the contents of the report Exh.P.A.
9. P.W.2 is Ahmad Khan who stated that in the year 1989 he had opened an account in the National Savings Centre-II, Gujrat with Rs.10. Thereafter he had deposited Rs.90,000 in his account and his account number was SA-1287. He again deposited Rs.20,000 in the aforesaid account. Rs.1,13,000, were withdrawn from his account. The brother of Riaz Ali accused came to him for help. On the next day, the brother of Riaz Ali accused went to National Savings Centre and gave Rs.25,000 to Mehboob Ahmed Shah accused and told him that as the accused Riaz Ali was his neighbour, therefore, he would collect the amount and adjust his claim. He submitted a cheque in the sum of Rs.1,10,450 which is Exh.P.B. On verification, Mehboob Ali Shah accused was astonished and told him that he did not have that much amount in his account. He showed the deposit slips Exhs. P.C. And P.D. To him alongwith his Pass Book Exh.P.E. Mehboob Ali Shah accused told him that the receipts Exhs.P.C. And P.D. Were correct but their carbon copies were forged and only Rs.100 each was entered in them. Riaz Ali had entered receipt of Rs.100 in A/C No.SA-1240. He then reported the incident to the F.I.A. He produced deposit slips Exhs. P.C. And P.D. Cheque Exh.P.B. And Pass Book Exh.P.E. Before the Investigating Officer and the said document was taken into consideration by the Investigating . Officer vide memo. Exh.P.F.
10. P.W.3 is Waqar Hussain, M.I.C.; District Courts, Lahore who on 8-11-1992 was posted as Magistrate 1 Class, Lahore. He stated that on the said date, Mumtaz Ahmad, Sub-Inspector F.I.A., Crimesst Circle, Lahore submitted an application Exhs.P.H. And P. I. For getting specimen handwriting and signatures of Riaz Ali and Mehboob Ali Shah and he allowed both the applications. He had obtained specimen signatures of Riaz Ali accused (who had signed as Ahmad Khan) as Exh.P.H./1 to Exh.P.H./18. He obtained the specimen signatures of Mehboob Ali Shah Exh.P.I./1 to P.I/9. He then got specimen writings of Riaz Ali accused which are Exh.P.H./19-47. He had asked Mehboob Ali Shah accused to write an application for casual leave in his presence and which he did. The aforesaid application is Exh.P.J. During the course of cross-examination P.W.3 stated that he did not know the accused personally and that they had been identified before him by Mumtaz All S.-I.
11. P.W.4 is Naseer Ahmad who in the year 1989 was posted in the National Savings Centre-II, Gujrat as Grade-II Officer. He stated that Saving Account No. 1287 was in the name of Ahmad Khan. On 26- 7-1990 Ahmed Khan came to their Centre and gave Rs.23,000 in cash to Riaz Ali accused. For depositing the same. This account was entered in the Day Book maintained by the cashier Riaz Ali.
He stated that normally deposit slip is prepared in duplicate and this is done with a carbon paper.
The deposit slip is prepared and issued by the Cashier. He stated that for the amount of Rs.23,000 deposited by Ahmad Khan accused Riaz Ali had prepared only the original deposit slip and he did not prepare its duplicate with a carbon paper. He gave the original deposit slip to Ahmad Khan.
12. P.W.5 is Sh. Mumtaz Ahmad, S.-I., F.I.A., Passport Cell who in the year 1992 was posted as S.-I. In F.I.A. Crime Circle, Lahore. The investigation of the case was entrusted to him after it had been partly investigated by Ahmad Khan, S.-I. He stated that Mehmood Ahmed Maneka, Assistant Director, F.I.A. Had registered F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 on the basis of complaint Exh.P.A. He i.e. P.W.5, took into possession the relevant record of the case and recorded the statements of P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. He arrested both the accused in this case. He took into. Possession the cheques/slips vide memo. Exh.P.F. He obtained the specimen signatures of Riaz Ali accused and Ahmad Khan which are Exh.P.H./1-18 in the presence of a Magistrate. He also obtained the specimen signatures of Mehboob Ali Shah accused which are Exh.P.1/1-9. He also obtained initials of Riaz Ahmad which are Exh.P.A./19-27. He had also obtained the routine signatures of Mehboob Ahmad. He further obtained the routine writing of Mehboob Ali Shah which is Exh.P.J. He obtained the permission of the Magistrate for specimen signatures of Riaz Ali accused while his application is Exh.P.H. He received the sanction Exh.P.O. For the prosecution of Mehboob Ali Shah accused. He then submitted the challan against the accused. During the course of examination, D he stated that when he produced the accused before the Magistrate for obtaining their hand-writing/signatures they had been in handcuffs but their cuffs were removed, at the time when the specimen. (of their signatures and writings) had been obtained. He denied that Riaz Ali accused A had not been produced before the Magistrate or that somebody else was produced, posing as Riaz Ali.
13. P.W.5 was recalled and his statement was recorded again on 6-10-1996. In his statement on 6- 10-1996 he clarified that he had not produced the accused in the custody before the Magistrate for getting his specimen signatures and that he had stated about his being custody's due to mistake.
He stated that the specimen signatures of the accused were taken about 5/6 months after his release on bail. He stated that as far as he remembered he had stated in the Court that the accused were not in handcuffs. He stated that it appeared to him that while recording statements the word "not" was not recorded due to typographical mistake.
14. On the completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of Riaz Ali accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded and wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances. In answer to a question as to why the prosecution witnesses have deposed against him, he replied that the P.Ws. Have deposed against him due to departmental rivalry and enmity. In his defence he produced certified copies of the bail order dated 10-5-1992 and 31-5-1990 as Exh.D.C. He, however, did not make statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor did he produce any other evidence in defence.
15. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as already mentioned above. Aggrieved of the impugned Judgment dated 24-3-1997, the appellant has filed this appeal.
16. Arguments have been heard, record perused.
17. Referring to the statements of P.W.5 recorded on 9-1-1996 and 6-10-1996 respectively, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in fact the appellant/accused Riaz Ali had not been produced before the Court and that in fact it was somebody else who was produced in his place and thus it cannot be assumed that his specimen signatures had been obtained by the Magistrate (P.W.3) who did not know him personally. He has argued that in his statement recorded on 9-1-1996 the Investigating Officer had stated that he had produced Riaz Ali accused before the Magistrate in handcuffs but when he appeared before the Court on .6-10-1996 he stated that Riaz Ali accused was on bail at that time and that he had not produced the accused before the Magistrate in custody. He has argued that the case against the accused Riaz Ali was based on mala fides and ulterior motives on that he had been involved in this case on account of enmity.
However, it has not been explained as to what enmity or ulterior motive Ahmad Khan P.W. Had for making a false statement against the appellant. There is no denying the fact that Riaz Ali accused/appellant was working as a Cashier in the National Savings Centre-IL Gujrat. It was he who had received the amount in question from the depositor i.e. Ahmad Khan P.W.1 and had issued the deposit slip. The appellant cannot derive any benefit merely because P.W.5 in his statement on 9-10-1996 had stated on account of inadvertence that the accused had been produced before the Magistrate in handcuffs. The accused had been produced before the Magistrate on 8-11-1992 while P.W.5 was making statement before the learned trial Court on 9-1-1996 i.e. After a lapse of more than three years. He cannot be expected to remember all minor details. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has not pointed out as to what departmental rivalry or enmity P.W.4 (who is an officer of his own department) could have with him and as to why he had deposed against him. There is nothing on record to indicate that the investigation had been conducted dishonestly or on incorrect line.
18. After carefully considering the arguments advanced from both sides and having gone through the record, I have reached the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence on record to establish all the charges against Riaz Ali appellant in this case. He was thus rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment. Thus his conviction on all the charges is liable to be upheld. However, it is felt that as the case remained pending for a long time and as the appellant has already undergone the agony of trial, therefore, I feel that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would be sufficient punishment.
19. In consequence of what has been stated above, the appeal is partly accepted, the conviction of the appellant' on all the charges is maintained but the sentence of imprisonment, awarded to Riaz Ali, accused appellant by the learned trial Court is reduced to that already undergone.