Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Petition No. 54‑K of 1986, decided on 26th August, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi dated 8‑5‑1986 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1986).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss‑ 471 & 403/109‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Fraud on Bank‑‑Two Courts below believing solitary prosecution witness as a truthful witness‑‑Evidence of such witness with regard to identification of signature of accused could not be said to have been illegally believed by two Courts‑‑Fact that name of accused was not shown in First Information Report was of no consequence‑‑No attempt was made on behalf of accused to summon report of handwriting expert‑‑Evidence in case having been appreciated in accordance with well‑settled legal principles and no question of law arising for consideration‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Hassan Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 26th August, 1986.
The petitioner was charged under sections 471 and 403 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the Presiding Officer of the Special Court (Banks) Karachi along with Din Muhammad and Anis Haider for entering into conspiracy to defraud United Bank Limited and in pursuance of the said plan and common intention having managed to withdraw in all a sum of Rs.6,60,000 by three cheques from 5‑8‑1984 to 23‑8‑1984 from Account No. 18851 opened in the name of "Star Enterprise". The petitioner and the co‑accused Din Muhammad were convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.14,00,000 or in default to further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The petitioner was convicted under sections 471 and 403/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Anis Haider was, however, acquitted.
2. The above judgment of the learned Special Court dated 6‑2‑1986 was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court but his appeal was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned judgment, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner's name did no: appear in the F.I.R., although the signatures of the petitioner were' examined by a handwriting expert his report was not produced and the conviction was based on the evidence of only one witness, namely, Muhammad Sadiq. According to the learned counsel Uzair Ahmad Siddiqui (P. W.9) was a witness to the facts of the case alone and not to the identity of the accused.
4. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court as well as the impugned judgment. The learned two Courts believed Muhammad Sadiq (P. W.8) as a truthful witness. According to Muhammad Sadiq the petitioner was working in the banking department and was incharge of T.T. Section. He had worked with the petitioner in the banking department for 4/5 years and thus was familiar with his signature. It was stated by him that he had signed the voucher Exh.3/C‑3 after the same was already signed by the petitioner and Badrul Hasnain. further, according to him the petitioner was incharge of receiving T.T. messages and it was his duty to prepare debit/credit vouchers like Exh. 3/C‑3. The evidence of this witness with regard to the signature of the petitioner cannot be said to have been illegally believed by the learned two Courts. Nothing turns on the fact that the name of the petitioner was shown in the F.I.R. No attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner to summon the report of the handwriting expert. The evidence in the case has been appreciated in accordance with well‑settled legal principles and no question of law arises for consideration. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer