The banks' (Ordinance to Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), Section 1020, had three witnesses on record, applying for the suspension of penalties that applied for fraudulent and dishonestly transferring property. He presented the original picture of the incident through oral and documentary evidence, and unanimously stated that although the matter had appeared at the head office, no one had, in fact, from their branches or through it. / Did not physically commit any such transaction. And the bank was subjected to fraud, all the bank managers were subjected to lengthy and cross-examination, but there was no question from them that their respective branches had been forged. By submitting certain proposals to the accused's account of remittances, it was admitted that the transaction was in fact a fraudulent transaction. Nor has it taken place physically or transacted through its branches. It was alleged that he did not refuse to receive a huge sum of money in his account but it was proof that these entries were genuine, but he failed to provide any proof to prove it. The money deposited in his account was genuine and was never deposited into his account through fraud and fraud. This may provide some evidence to prove that the defendant's statement under Section 342, CRPC, was genuine denial in the original case. Content convinced of its position, can never be helpful. The fact is that the accused along with others have faked his account
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
