Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeals Nos. 18 and 51 of 1963, decided on 7th, April 1965.

, Ss. 420, 468 & 471 read with Evidence Art (I of 1872), S., 45--Expert evidence ---Fraud-Forgery- Person in collusion with tapedar fraudulently receiving Taqair loan falsely applied for in name of complainant-Eye-witnesses either won over or not fully supporting prosecution story-Even complainant once admitting to have received loan although later resiling from statement alleging same to have been procured under influence and press Pre-Complainant a relation of receiver of money and having no ostensible reason to falsely implicate him-Finger print expert being definitely of opinion that bond and Taqavi register bore thumb impression of receiver and giving cogent reasons therefore-Such reasons not questioned on behalf of accused in lower Court and accepted by lower Court as satisfactory-High Court on examination of reasons also agreeing with lower Court found no ground to interfere with conviction in circumstances of case.

Muhammad Ali Sayeed holding brief for G: M: Shah for Appellant.

Abdul Kadir Shaikh, A. A.-G. for the State.

Dates of hearing: 2nd and 5th April 1965.

The-appellants, Muhammad Usman and Allahdad, have been convicted under sections 420, 468 and 471, P. P. C., and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to-pay fine of Rs. 300 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more on each count. The sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently. The appellants have filed appeals, which will be disposed of under this judgment.

2. The facts of the prosecution case briefly are that one Ayub had made an application Exh. 2-A on the 20th of September 1958 for Taqavi loan of Rs. 200.00 to the Mukhtiarkar, Taluka Miro Khan. As the land of Ayub was in Tapo Hyder Chandio the application was forwarded by the Mukhtiarkar to appellant Muhammad Usman who was the Tapedar of that place at the relevant time. The appellant, Muhammad Usman, sent a favourable report, which has been brought on record as Exh. 2-B. The Mukhtiarkar consequently sanctioned the Taqavi loan of Rs. 200 for Ayub. This amount was drawn is the name of Ayub and was given over by Arbab Ali, the Second Munshi of the Taluka, The appellant, Allahdad, who represented himself as Ayub, and received the amount thumb-marked the documents Exhs. 2-C, 2-D and 2-E as Ayub.

3. Muhammad Hussain, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Anti-Corrup tion in the course of investigation of certain other cases came to know that the appellants, Muhammad Usman and Allahdad had in collusion committed offences mentioned above on account of Allahdad having put himself up as Ayub and received the sum of Rs. 200 on being identified by appellant Muhammad Usman as Ayub. He, therefore on behalf of the State registered the first information report, Exh. 3-A, on the 11^th of December 1959. He thereafter obtained permission Exh. 3-B to carry on the investigation regarding the offences. He thereafter recorded, the statements of the witnesses and also sent the necessary documents with the specimen thumb impressions of Allahdad to the Finger Print Expert Ale Ahmad P. W. 4 whose opinion Exh. 3-E is to the effect that on some of tire documents where the thumb impressions of Allahdad were distinct they tallied with his specimen thumb impressions. After the usual investigation was completed and after the sanction to prosecute the applicant was obtained, the appellants were challaned.

4. The appellants, when questioned, denied the allegations made against them. The statement of appellant Muhammad Usman was that the amount of Rs. 200 was given not to Allahdad but to Ayub and that he had rightly identified Ayub at the time when the money was paid to him. Ire has also stated that Ayub has given evidence against him because of the grievance he had on account of a case having been filed against one Sono Gorai, a relation of Ayub. He bar, examined no witness in defence. The Appellant Allahdad has also denied the allegations made against him and has stated that the amount of Rs 200 was given to Ayub and that Ayub had put his thumb impressions on the documents executed in the presence of the Mukhtiarkar. He has, however, admitted that he had thumb marked Exh. 2-D as a witness and not as Ayub. He has also examined no witness in defence.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove their case, have examined Mir Muhammad P. W. 1, the Mukhtiarkar of Mirokhan Taluka and Arbab Ali P. W. 5, Second Munsh9. Mir Muhammad has stated that the application Exh. 2-A was made to him on the 20th September 1958. This application purported to have been made by Ayub, a person who had lands within the beat of appellant Muhammad Usman, who was at that time the Tapedar of Tapo Hyder Chandio. He has also stated that he had received the report of the Tapedar. Exh. 2-B on the basis of, which he had sanctioned the loan of Rs. 200 for Ayub. He has also stated that this amount of Rs. 200 was given to a person who was identified by appellant Muhammad Usman to be Ayub. He has produced documents Exhs. 2-C, 2-D and 2-E. Exhibit 2-C is a bond written by appellant Muhammad Usman. It is said to have been thumb marked by Ayub. Exh. 2-D is a surety bond, which was also written by appellant Muhammad Usman and admittedly bears the thumb impression of appellant Allahdad. Exhibit 2-E is an entry from the register of Taqavis on which thumb mark purporting to be of Ayub was obtained. The evidence of Arbab Ali P. W. 5 is also to the effect that this amount of Rs. 200 was paid by him to Ayub Mir Muhammad P. W. I has, stated that he seas nest able to identify the person who actually received this money on account of so many years having passed. Arbab Ali, on the other hand, has stated that he paid this money to Ayub and not to Allahdad whom he knew previously. The evidence of Arbab Ali has been disbelieved by the learned Special Judge for the reasons given by him in the judgment and I have no reason to disagree with the learned Judge on the view taken by him that Arbab Ali had come forward to give false evidence In support of Allahdad probably on account of some pressure having been brought to bear on him. The evidence of Mir Muhammad, however, has been admitted by both the appellants.

6. The short question on the evidence discussed above that needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the amount of Rs. 200 was applied for by Ayub and was given to him as Taqavi loan or whether this amount was applied for in the name of Ayub by Allahdad and received by Allahdad with the active collusion of appellant Muhammad Usman. The evidence on which this issue can be decided consists of the evidence of Ayub P. W. 3 acid Ale Ahmed, the Finger Print Expert P. W. 4. Ayub who is a relation of Allahdad has ostensibly no reason to falsely implicate him. He has in clear terms stated that he had never applied for a loan of Rs. 200. He has denied his thumb impression on the application Exh. 2-A. He has also denied having received Rs. 200 as Taqavi loan and has denied his thumb impression on Exhs. 2-C, 2-D and 2-E. The learned counsel for the appellants has criticised his evidence on the ground that Ayub had given different version before the police and had stated at one time that he had received the loan of Rs. 200. He has explained that state ment in his evidence before the Court and stated that he had said so because Muhammad Usman had approached him with the Holy Quran. He has also explained the repayment of Rs. 200 by saying that he was pressed very hard by the Tapedar who succeeded the appellant Muhammad Usman for payment of Rs. 200. There is otherwise nothing on the record to show that Ayub has falsely implicated either the appellant Muhammad Usman or the appel lant Allahdad. The learned. Special Judge has believed his evidence and I also see no reason to disbelieve it.

The evidence of Ayub is supported strongly by the evidence of Ale Ahmed P. W. 4, who is the Finger Print Expert. This witness has stated in his evidence that the disputed thumb impressions were sent to him along with the specimen them impressions of appellant Allahdad and- that he had on a com parison found that at least the thumb impressions on Exhs. 2-C and 2-E were clearly of Allahdad. With regard to the other thumb impressions on the disputed documents he has stated that they were either indistinct or superimposed and that they were of the type on which no definite opinion could be given. This witness has also given reasons for giving his opinion. The reasons given by him have not been questioned by the learned counsel for the appellants in the lower court. I hate examined the reasons and the evidence of this witness and I am convinced that this witness has given true evidence. The very fact that the witness was not able to give his opinion in respect of thumb impressions on the disputed document Exh. 2-E indicates very clearly that the witness was impartial in the examination of the documents. I, therefore fully rely upon the evidence of the Finger Print Expert and come to the conclusion that the thumb impressions on Exhs. 2-C and 2-E were of Allahdad. In the event of the thumb impressions on Exhs. 2-C and 2-E being of Allahdad no argument can be accepted that the amount of Rs. 200 was paid to Ayub. The thumb impressions on these two documents being of Allahdad there can be no room for doubt that it was Allahdad who had made an application as Ayub for the Taqavi loan of Rs. 200 and had received Rs. 200 representing himself to be Ayub.

7. The evidence mentioned above is further supplemented by the admission of Allahdad appellant that he was present at the time when this amount was paid to Ayub. He has in his statement at least admitted his thumb impression on Exh. 2-D which is a surety bond said to have been taken from Ayub. According to Allahdad, he had signed the document Exh. 2-D as a witness and not as Ayub. This admission on the part of Allahdad goes a long way to support the evidence of Ayub and the Finger Print Expert Ale Ahmad.

8. The question about appellant Muhammad Usman being a party to this fraud committed on the Mukhtiarkar is proved from the evidence of Mir Muhammad P. W. 1, the Mukhtiarkar of the beat. He has very clearly stated that it was the appellant Muhammad Usman who had identified the person to whom the amount of Rs. 200 was paid as Ayub and it was on his identification that this amount was paid to the person identified by the appellant Muhammad Usman. Mir Muhammad has also established that the documents Exhs. 2-C and 2-D were written by Muhammad Usman and that the person receiving this amount was paid in his presence and that the amount was paid to him after he was identified by Muhammad Usman as Ayub.

9. The evidence on the record, therefore, in my opinion, leaves no room for doubt that the appellants are guilty of the offences with which they have been charged. I, therefore, seeing no merit in the appeals filed by them dismiss them. They are on bail and their bail bonds would stand cancelled. Warrants may be issued for execution on them for serving out the unexpired portion of their sentence.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.