Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Bail Application No.33 of 1985, decided on 18th March, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 5(6)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.467‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Bail‑‑Accused, Cashier of Bank, withdrawing different sums of money from accounts of different account‑holders. of Bank by forged cheques and affixing their false thumb‑impressions or making their false signatures‑‑Accused confessing, through after 12/13 days, that he had already deposited with drawn money back in Bank and that remaining amount will also be deposited by him within a few days‑‑Report of Finger Print Expert stating that thumb‑impressions on forged cheques for withdrawal of money for different account‑holders corresponded with thumb‑impression of accused‑‑Reasonable ground, held, existed to believe that accused had committed offence under S. 467, P.P.C. and S.5(6) of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984‑‑Bail refused in circumstances.
Tooh v. The State 1975 P Cr. L J 440 distinguished.
Muhammad Akbar Butt for Petitioner.
Nazir Ahmad Ghazi, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Date of hearing: 18th March, 1985.
The allegation against the accused‑petitioner Syed Badar Amir is that while posted as cashier of Diwal Branch of M.C.B. Pind Dadan Khan, he had been withdrawing different sums of money from the accounts of different account‑holders of the bank by forged cheques and affixing their false thumb‑impressions or making their false signatures. As a result of this, it is alleged, that the accused had withdrawn a sum of Rs.2,58,000 from the said bank.
2. The Investigating Officer states that he had already recorded statement of Abdullah grandfather of Iram Shahzadi, minor account holder, who used to operate her account, and he had stated in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. that he had not withdrawn the disputed sum by means of the cheque alleged to have been deposited in the bank for the withdrawal of the money. The Investigating Officer further submits that the remaining account‑holders have not been traced yet as they belong to different villages, some of them have left the country and have gone abroad and their accounts have been closed, while others he would be able to trace out within a few days.
3. Accused‑petitioner Syed Badar Amir was arrested on 14‑1‑1985. He made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate on 27‑1‑1985 admitting withdrawal by him of different sums of money by forged cheques and also stated that he had deposited the whole defalcated amount except a sum of Rs.91,000 and that this remaining amount of Rs.91,000 will also be deposited by him within a few days.
4. Learned counsel for the accused‑petitioner submits that this confessional statement cannot be accepted as independent as it was obtained after 12/13 days of the arrest of the accused as held in Pooh v. The State 1975 P Cr. L J 440.
5. It is true that the said confessional statement has been recorded after a period of 13 days but the circumstance that the accused have deposited the entire sum except a sum of Rs.91,000 is also to be taken into consideration and the said deposit cannot be considered to be the result of any pressure of the police: This deposit read with the admission in the said statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. that he had been withdrawing different sums of money, appear to show that the petitioner had been withdrawing the sums of money fraudulently from the bank. In any way, the report of the finger‑print expert has been received stating that the thumb‑impression on Cheque No. 559313 and 5589009, purporting to be that of Abdullah, for withdrawal of money from the account of tram Shahzadi minor, account‑holder, correspond with the left thumb‑impression of the accused petitioner Badar Amir. There is, therefore, reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence under section 467, P.P.C. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed.
M.B.A
Application dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer