Find a Lawyer

Case No.261 of 1984, decided on 29th October, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 409/109 & 467/468/471/201‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 (2)‑‑Secondary evidence‑‑Carbon office copies, use of as‑ District Accounts Office preparing drawing schedule in triplicate‑ Drawing schedule showing bills passed by D.A.O. on Government account‑‑Original drawing schedule normally sent to bank‑‑Bank obliged to make payments only for bills entered in drawing schedule‑‑Original drawing schedule misplaced‑‑Drawing schedule register containing carbon copies of drawing schedule as office copies, held, was rightly brought on record as secondary evidence. ‑‑[Evidence].

‑‑‑Ss. 409/109 & 467/468/471/201‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947). S.5 (2)‑‑Unauthorised payments on Government account‑‑Seven bills purporting to be passed by District Accounts Office for payment on Government account, allegedly paid by accused, unauthorisedly‑ District Accounts Office preparing drawing schedule in triplicate, slowing bills passed by District Accounts office for payment on Government account‑‑Original drawing schedule sent to bank‑‑Bank obliged only to make payments against bills appearing in drawing schedule‑‑No entries in drawing schedule about authorization of said bills by District Accounts Office‑‑Payment of bills admitted by accused‑‑Entries in Government debit scroll showing payment of said bills‑‑Plea of accused that drawing schedule was not received in bank, found negated by evidence on record‑‑Since none of seven bills appeared in drawing schedule, payments against them shown in Government debit scroll, held, were unauthorised and fictitious‑‑Accused having dominion over bank a‑mount, made fictitious payments and thereby misappropriated bank money and committed criminal breach of trust.

Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others P L D 1962 S C 502: Abdul Majid v. Superintendent and Remembrancer Legal Affairs, Government of East Pakistan P L D 1964 S C 422 and State v. Manzoor Ahmad P L D 1966 S C 664 ref.

‑‑‑Ss. 409/109 & 467/468/471/201‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947). S. 5 (2)‑‑Forgery‑‑Falsification of account‑‑No Government bills prepared or presented for payment‑‑Only fictitious entries of payment in Government debit scroll made‑‑Offence of forgery, held, was not committed in respect of Government bills which never ex s d. Making false entries in Government debit scroll, however, would fall under falsification of accounts, punishable under S. 477‑A, P.P.C.

‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑Abusing official position‑‑Accused bank employees made fictitious entries and falsified bank accounts‑‑Accused, held, had drawn pecuniary advantage by abusing official position and were, therefore, convicted under S. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act.

Kh. Saeed‑uz‑Zafar, Special Prosecutor for the State.

Saleem Mahmood Chan for Respondents.

In this case, complaint dated 11‑10‑1975 Exh P.W.6/A‑4 was made by the District Accounts Officer, Gujranwala to the S.P. Gujranwala in respect of payment made by the bank from the Government account without said payments having been authorized by him. It was stated in this complaint that it had been noticed that in the account relating to 2‑5‑1975, payments of sums of Rs.4,950, Rs.1,000, Rs.10,700, Rs.6.000, Rs.115, Rs.7,513 and Rs.4,935 totalling Rs.35,213 had been made by National Bank of Pakistan, Civil Lines Branch, Gujranwala without any authority from his office. It was further stated in this complaint that despite best efforts, the bank had failed to intimate authority for payment from his office i.e. token No and date, scroll No and date and name of the department. In the end, it was requested that necessary arrangements be made to investigate the case as ordered by Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala.

2. On the basis of this complaint, F.I.R. No.147 Exh.P.W.6/A‑6 was registered on 22‑1‑1976 in P.S. City Gujranwala for offences under sections 409/109, 467/468, 471/201, P.P.C. In investigation on 20‑12‑1976 in the presence of Mukhtar Ahmad, Staff Officer, Qazi Saleem Akhtar, Assistant Manager, N.B.P., Civil Lines Branch, Gujranwala produced and I.O. Bashir Ahmad A.S.I. P.S. Model Town, Gujranwala, took into Possession, by virtue of memo of said date, carbon copy of payment scroll dated 2‑5‑1975 consisting of 41 pages and cashier's payment register from 29‑6‑1974 to 23‑6‑1975, having 1 to 200 printed page marking, on page 115 of which, there were entries from serial Nos. 47 to 53 of the payment of bills alleged to have been unauthorisedly paid. On 27‑6‑1977, Ch. Ali Ahmad, Accountant, District Accounts Office, Gujranwala and Muhammad Hanif A.S.I, P.S. Model Town, Gujranwala took into possession by virtue of memo of said date the original copy of scroll dated 2‑5‑1975 in which seven lost vouchers stood entered alongwith summary of the said vouchers and Letter No. Misc. GENISL: 580, dated 3‑9‑1975 from N.B.P. Civil Lines Gujranwala addressed to Accounts Officer Gujranwala. The accused Muhammad Siddiq, Clerk, Accounts Office, Gujranwala, Muhammad Asghar Butt, Supervisor, N.B.P. , Civil Lines, Gujranwala, Nazar Karim Bhatti, Officer of N.B.P. , Civil Lines, Gujranwala and Abbas Raza Cashier of the said branch of N.B.P. were challaned by the S.H.O., P.S. Model Town on 19‑11‑1977. This was an incomplete challan as it was stated in it that the samples of the writing of the accused and Mushtaq Ahmad Clerk had been sent for comparison to the handwriting expert, Lahore, and the result was awaited.

3. The Special. Judge (Central) before whom the trial of the accused started charged the four accused for offence under section 409, P.P.C. for having committed offence of criminal breach of trust as public servant of the said sums amounting in all to Rs.35,213 by showing its payment to fictitious persons and for offence under section 467, P.P.C. for having forged seven Government bills which are valuable securities worth Rs.35,213, entered the same in the Government scroll and for having made entries of their payments in cash register without recording any name or address in the same. He also charged them with offence under section 5 of Act II of 1947 for having drawn pecuniary advantage of Rs.35,213 from the said transaction.

4. In this case, 12 witnesses appeared. Hashmat Ali A.S.I. appeared as P.W.6 as a formal witness who recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.P.W.6/A‑6 on the basis of letter Exh.P.W.6/A‑4, which constituted the complaint in this case. So far as the production of documents on 27‑6‑1977 before Muhammad Hanif A.S.I. is concerned, Sardar Hasan Muhammad appeared as P.W.3, Muhammad Abdullah as P.W.4 and Muhammad Hanif A.S.I. appeared as P.W.11. They proved that Ch. Ali Muhammad Accountant, District Accounts Office, Gujranwala had presented and the said police officer had by virtue of memo. Exh.P.B taken into possession bank scroll Exh.P‑1 and its relevant summary Exh.P.2 and a letter, dated 3‑9‑1975 from N.B.P. Civil Lines Gujranwala addressed to Accounts Officer, Gujranwala Exh.P.19. The said letter was to the effect that the instructions to give particulars alongwith token No of District Accounts Office, as given on the payment scroll, are always followed by the bank but in case of seven bills, the token numbers had been missed through an oversight and that Payment Advice of District Accounts office had been misplaced on account of rush of work. Over and above that Muhammad Hanif A.S.I. stated that he had taken samples of the writing of the accused and one Muhammad Mushtaq, Clerk of the Civil Lines Branch N.B.P., before the Magistrate for comparison with the writing on bank scroll Exh.P.1. These specimens are P.3 to P.18. He also took the specimens of the signature of Muhammad Asghar Butt as P.W.11/1 to P.W.11/6. He stated that he had got those sent to the handwriting expert for comparison. These specimens and suspected document P.1 and P.2 were sent to the handwriting expert but were returned as per letter dated 26‑10‑1977 from the Director Forensic Science Laboratory in which further samples and particulars were called for. This letter which is on the record of this case shows a receipt stamp of office of the S.P., dated 27‑10‑1977 and the samples also bear the stamp of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore showing that the said samples had been to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory. It, however, appears that no action was taken to send further samples to the handwriting expert. It is also not understandable as to how the said suspected document alongwith the samples came on the record of this case without anything further having been done by the investigating agency or without complete challan having been filed. Therefore, these samples of the handwriting continue to remain on the file without any benefit to the prosecution.

5. So far as production of documents on 20‑12‑‑1976 before Bashir Ahmad, A.S.I. is concerned Qazi Saleem Akhtar appeared as P.W.1, Mukhtar Ahmad as P.W.5, A.S.I. Bashir Ahmad, I.O. as P.W.12. Qazi Saleem Akhtar, appeared as P. W.1 in the Court of Special Judge (Central) but as also shown by the interlocutory order dated 8‑12‑1981, his complete statement could not be recorded as record mentioned in the relevant seizure memo. Exh.P.C. and alleged to have been taken into possession were not available on the court file. The said record consisted of carbon copy of payment scroll dated 2‑5‑1975, consisting of 41 pages, and the cashier's payment register which as recorded in report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was meant to show that Abbas Raza Khan Cashier had not entered in the said record and in his said book the names and the addresses of the persons to whom he had male payments. After incomplete statement of said witness had been recorded, the prosecution got number of dates for production of the said record. The record was not produced even till the end of 1982 and learned Special Judge (Central) by his order dated 19‑12‑1982 refused to give any further time to the prosecution to produce the said record and proceeded to record the, remaining evidence in this case. Mukhtar Ahmad appeared as P.W.5 and stated that the record mentioned in Exh.P.C. was produced by P.W.1 Qazi Saleem Akhtar, Assistant Manager. In cross‑examination he accepted that the record mentioned in memo. Exh.P.C., payment book containing 200 pages, was missing from the file. Bashir Ahmad, I.O. appeared as P.W.12 to prove the presentation to him of said papers/ documents. However, by inadvertence he also stated that he took into possession debit scroll Exh.P.W.12/1 to Exh P.W.12/17 by virtue of seizure memo. Exh.P.W.12/18. His said statement, however, was not correct as regards Exh.P.W.12/1 to Exh.P.W.12/17, because according to the memo. he had taken into possession carbon copies of the payment scrolls while Exh.P.W.12/1 to Exh.P.W.2/17 were not the said scrolls. The document Exh.P.W.12/1 was the summary already marked as EXh.P.2 and had not been taken into possession by him while documents EXh.P.W.12/2 to Exh.P.W.12/17 were actually sample sheets of samples of handwriting of the accused and another person, taken on blank debit scrolls, had already been marked as Exh.P‑3 to P‑18 and had been wrongly marked over again as Exh.P.W.12/2 to Exh.P.W.12/17 on account of inadvertant mistake on the part of the Special Prosecutor. As a matter of fact it is clear from the interlocutory orders of the Court of Special Judge (Central) from 8‑12‑1981 to 19‑12‑1982 that the said Payment scrolls had been lost. This witness also stated that he also took into possession the Cashier's Payment Register from 29‑6‑1974 to 23‑6‑1975 but the same had been misplaced somewhere and at present it was not on the file. The result is that neither the carbon copies of the payment scroll for 2‑5‑1975 consisting of 41 pages nor Cashier's Payment Register from 29‑6‑1974 to 23‑6‑1975 is available on the file. The relevant page of the original debit scroll or payment scroll for 2‑5‑1975 was produced by the District Accounts Office and is on record and, therefore, the loss of carbon copy of the same has not affected the case materially but the loss of cashier's payment register has robbed the prosecution of the proof of the paying cashier, accused Abbas Raze Khan, not having entered the names and addresses of the payees to whom he made payments on the disputed seven bills.

6. Muhammad Sarwar District Accounts Officer appeared as P.W.2 in the Court of Special Judge (Central) and stated that he had brought the scroll register from 5‑4‑1975 to 2‑5‑1975, which he produced for the perusal of the Court and stated that according to his record payment made by the N.B.P. amounting to Rs.35,213 vide seven entries marked on debit scroll Exh.P.A. as Exh.P.A./1 had been made unauthorisedly as his office had not allowed the payment of the said amount. He, however, admitted in cross‑examination that the occurrence related to the period of Muhammad Abbas, his predecessor‑in‑office. Muhammad Abbas, who was posted as District Accounts Officer, Gujranwala on 1‑8‑1975, appeared as P.W.8 and Fazal Hussain who as District Accounts officer was transferred to Gujranwala in April, 1984 appeared as F.W.10. The crux of their evidence is that the procedure of their office is that the bills of the Government Departments are submitted in the Office of D.A.O., who issues token numbers to the presenters and makes entry of token numbers on the bills and after 2/3 days returns the passed bills to those presenters who surrender their tokens in the District Accounts Office to get the passed fills. They further stated that the number of the token is allowed to remain written on the bills and payment advice known as drawing schedule is prepared in triplicate in the office of .District Accounts Officer in respect of passed bills, original of which is sent to the bank and when the passed bills are presented by the representatives of Government Departments in the bank for payment, the bank has to make sure that the bill is included in the drawing schedule and without its entry in the said schedule, the bank is not authorised to make any payment and if a passed bill is presented B but there is no entry of same in the drawing schedule, then the bank has to refer the matter to the District Accounts Officer and is not to make payment until the bill is included in a drawing schedule. They also stated that after the payment is made, the debit scroll alongwith the vouchers on which payments have been made by the bank are sent to the Office of District Account Officer for preparation of monthly accounts of receipts and payments. Fazal Hussain P.W.10 had also stated that the drawing schedule is prepared in triplicate; the original copy goes to the bank, first carbon copy goes to the section in which bills are passed, while the second carbon copy is retained in the register. He produced the said register as Exh.P.W.10/1. It contained the carbon copies of the drawing schedules from 5‑4‑1975 to 2‑5‑1975 obviously including the relevant drawing schedule of 2‑5‑1975. He stated that he had not found the said seven entries entered in the drawing schedule of 2‑5‑1975 or any other schedules of earlier dates. He also stated that all the drawing schedules in the said register were genuine as they were signed by Muhammad Muslim, District Accounts Officer, who had died before he had taken over at Gujranwala.

7. Kanwar Munir, who was posted as Clerk in Civil Lines Branch, N.B.P., Gujranwala was examined as P.W.7. He stated that Muhammad Asghar Butt, Nazar Karim and Abbas Raze were respectively working as supervisor, officer and cashier on 2‑5‑1975. He also stated that he could not identify the handwriting on the debit scroll P.1 and could not say as to who had written them. He also stated that it was the duty of three employees of the bank on 2‑5‑1975 to prepare the Government debit scroll and one of them was accused Muhammad Asghar Butt but there were also one Wahab and Muhammad Mushtaq who is a P.W. in this case but had left for Germany. Another officer of the bank Mahboob Ali Shah appeared as P.W.9. He stated that the Government debit scroll is prepared in the bank and that the bills passed by the District Accounts Office, bearing signature of the District Accounts Officer' and embossed seal of District Accounts Office, Gujranwala, were presented in the bank, the clerk receiving the said bills makes entry of the same in the debit scroll and after he had made entries, he sends bills to the concerned officer who after verifying signature of D.A.O. on the bills and after verifying the entry of the bills in the drawing schedule passes the bills as fit for payment, and the persons who have tokens with them present their tokens to the cashier, signs the bills and get the amount of the bills from the cashier. He also stated that the clerk who is making the Government payment, thereafter, enters all the vouchers of the day in the Government Debit Scroll and totals the entire payment which is called summary and also balances the payments with the transfers and the cash actually paid and on the next day in the morning he sends the debit scroll alongwith the vouchers to the concerned bank officer who signs it in token of its correctness and sends it back to the said clerk. He further stated that thereafter the said clerk after entering the same in the register sends all the vouchers and the Government debit scroll to the District Accounts Office. He also stated that he could not identify the handwriting of anyone of the employees of the said branch who were working there in 1975. After the statement of said witness has been recorded, prosecution evidence was closed.

8. Thereafter statements of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded. The three accused who are employees of N.B.P., Civil Lines Branch Gujranwala, namely, Abbas Raze Khan, Supervisor, Nazar Karim Bhatti, officer and Muhammad Asghar Butt, paying cashier, admitted payments having been made as shown in the entries P.A/1 in Government debit scroll P.1 but denied that they had made the said payments unauthorisedly. They took the stand that drawing schedule had not been received and payments had been made in routine on seeing the signature of District Accounts Officer and the embossed seal of District Accounts Office authenticating the signatures of District Accounts Officer on the bills. They also raised the plea that vouchers (paid bills) had been sent to the office of District. Account Officer where those had been lost and that office had shifted the responsibility on to the shoulders of the bank employees. Abbas Raze Khan also stated that he was working as a paying cashier and had made payments on receiving token of Government bills. Accused Muhammad Siddiq denied that he had withdrawn the sum of Rs.35,213 alongwith other accused from the bank and stated that he had no concern with the employees of the N.B.P. He further said that he had merely pointed out to the District Accounts Officer that vouchers had not been received from the bank in the District Accounts Office and he had been hauled up only on that account. The accused stated that they would not produce any defence. They also stated that they would not even appear as witness in their own defence under, the option available to them under subsection (2) of section 340, Cr.P.C. as it stood before its amendment in 1985. Since the amendment made in 1985 in subsection (2) of section 340, Cr.P.C. making it incumbent for the Court to record statement of an accused person as a witness in his own defence took away the right of an accused person to exercise option to appear or not to appear as a witness in his own defence and this was a substantive right, I had held in my order, dated 12‑6‑1985 in State v. Khan Muhammad (Case No. 5 of 1984 of this Court) that the amended subsection (2) of section; 340, Cr.P.C. was not retrospective in effect and did not apple to pending cases. I, therefore, did not compel the accused to appear as witnesses in their own defence to disprove the charges and allegation made against them.

9. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the accused and learned Special Prosecutor twice I have also perused the record thoroughly.

10. From the statements of P.W.8 Abbas Khan and P.W.10 Fazal Hussain it stands established that all bills passed by the office of District Accounts Officer are entered in a drawing schedule (also called payment advice) which is sent to the bank to enable the bank to make payment to persons who present to the bank the Government bills bearing the signature of the District Accounts Officer in token of his having passed it as well as the embossed seal of the District Account Office authenticating the said signature. It also stands proved that the bank can make payments on a bill only if its entry is available in a drawing schedule sent by the District Accounts Officer to the bank. One of the pleas raised by the three accused belonging to N.B.P., namely, Muhammad Asghar Butt, Supervisor Nazar Karim Bhatti, Officer and Abbas Raza Khan paying cashier is that no drawing schedule was sent to the bank and payment was made by them from the bank funds on the basis of Government bills bearing the signature of District Accounts Officer as authenticated by the embossed seal of the said office available on them. The question therefore, is whether the drawing schedule of 2‑5‑1975 was sent to the said branch of the bank. It is however, notable in this connection that the stand of the Manager of Civil Lines Branch of the bank right from the beginning was that the drawing schedules including one on which payments on 2‑5‑19.75 were made had been received in the bank. Pointed reference in this connection is made to Exh.P.19, letter, dated 3‑9‑1975 from the Manager Civil Lines Branch, Gujranwala, to Accounts Officer, Gujranwala, in which it was stated that advice (drawing schedule) of the District Account Office, Gujranwala had been misplaced on account of overwhelming rush of work. This letter by the Manager specifically accepted the receipt of the drawing schedule in the bank. Again in Exh.P.W.6/A‑5 letter dated 5th of January, 1976 from the Manager N.B.P., Civil Lines Branch to the S.P. Gujranwala, a paragraph from earlier letter, dated 20‑8‑1975 of the bank was quoted and other reasons to explain the said payment were given but no stand was taken that drawing schedule had not been received in the bank and thus, the receipt in the bank of the drawing schedule was again accepted by him by implication. Furthermore, even in the document put in by the accused in their defence, the factum of drawing schedule having been received stands accepted. In Exh.D.C. letter, dated 12‑8‑1975 from District Accounts Officer to Manager of the branch, specific reference was made to daily advice (Drawing Schedule) having been sent by the District Accounts Office to the bank and in Exh.D.D. reply letter by the Manager, there is no denial of receipt of said drawing schedule by the bank. It is true that Fazal Hussain P.W.10 had stated. that signature for receipt by the bank of the drawing schedule was and is taken on a separate book which is named Dak Book but the Dak Book would have been produced before and taken into possession by the police if the bank had denied having received the drawing schedule for 2‑5‑1975. However, as the things stood at the time when investigation in the case was made and challan submitted, the Manager of the bank had already in his letter Exh.P.19 accepted that the said drawing schedule had been received in the bank. P.W.8 Muhammad Abbas. District Accounts Officer, who took over in Gujranwala on 1‑8‑1975, categorically denied the suggestion that the drawing schedules had not been despatched to the N.B.P. every day regularly. On this evidence, in my opinion the plea of the accused that no drawing schedule was received in the bank appears to be an afterthought and is not liable to be believed and indeed appears to be false in toto.

11. In this connection, I am conscious that P.W.8 Abbas Khan, District Accounts Officer, Gujranwala stated in his examination‑in‑chief that the drawing schedule sent by the District Accounts Office is not available on record but as deposed by P.W.10 Fazal Hussain, drawing schedule is made in triplicate and the original is sent to the bank and, therefore, the drawing schedule sent to the N.B.P., Civil Lines Branch was an original drawing schedule which according to Exh.P.19, the letter of the Manager, had been misplaced somewhere. In these circumstances, Exh.P.W.10/1 the drawing schedule register, containing the carbon copies as office copies of drawing schedules from 5‑4‑1975 to 2‑5‑1975 was rightly brought on record as secondary evidence.

12. The genuineness of the said register and drawing schedules in it is not open to any. doubt because as deposed by P.W.10 Fazal Hussain the said register was available in the Office of the District Accounts Officer and had been made much earlier to his appointment and could not have been made after 9‑12‑1984, the date of his appointment in Gujranwala as it involved so many departments. Drawing schedules of each date available in it contained the signature' of Muhammad Muslim, District Accounts Officer, who died four/five years or three years ago and also contained the initials of the then official of the office of the District Accounts Officer against entries made in each schedule. Furthermore, this very register had been produced on 6‑4‑1983 for perusal of the Court by P.W.2 Muhammad Sarwar, District Accounts Officer who was predecessor in office of District Accounts Officer, Muhammad Abbas P.W.8. Suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused that this register was prepared by the staff of District Accounts Office Fazal Hussain P.W.10 on or after 9‑12‑1984 stands negated by the circumstance that this very register had been produced in the predecessor Court on 6‑4‑1983.

13. P. W.2 Muhammad Sarwar, District Accounts Officer, who produced the register of drawing schedules (which he called scroll register) from 5‑4‑1975 to 2‑5‑1975 for the perusal of the Court deposed that according to the record of his office payments made by N.B.P., Civil Lines Branch, Lahore of sums of Rs.4.950, Rs.1,000 Rs.10,700, Rs.6,000, Rs.115, Rs.7,513 and Rs.4,935 totalling a sum of Rs.35,213, entries for which are cumulatively marked as Exh P.A./1 in Government, debit scroll Exh. P.1, were unauthorisedly made, as, District Accounts Office had not allowed the payment of said amounts. It is clear that he F had made that statement after having compared the entries in the drawing schedule for 2‑5‑1975 and those of earlier dates with the entries in Exh.P.A./1 and after having come to the conclusion that the said sums were not entered in the said drawing schedules and their payments had not beer authorized by the Office of District Accounts Officer, P.W.10 Fazal Hussain, District Accounts Officer, however, produced the said register in the Court and got it exhibited as Exh.P.W.10/1.He deposed that he had compared entries of payments of 7 bills on Government debit scroll Exh.P.1 with the carbon copy of the drawing schedule for 2‑5‑1975 and even with those of earlier dates in the said register but he had not been able to find the said entries in the said drawing schedule 9. Thus, the two District Accounts Officers have deposed that there is no entry‑of Authorization of said payments on carbon copies of the drawing schedule for 2‑5‑1975 and those of earlier dates. I have also compared the entries in drawing schedules for 2‑5‑1975 and of earlier dates with the payments for said sums and find that there is no entry in them of authorisation for payments of disputed sum by District Accounts Officer. It has clearly been stated by both the District Accounts Officers Muhammad Abbas P.W.8 and Fazal Hussain P.W.10 in their statements that bank cannot make any payment on a Government bill presented to it even if it appears to have been passed by the office of District Accounts Officer and bears the signatures of the District Accounts Officer and embossed seal of the office of the District Accounts Officer authenticating the same unless the bills has been entered in the drawing schedule. Even Mahboob Ali Shah P.W.9 who had been Manager, of N.B.P. Civil Lines Branch, Gujranwala and was fully conversant with the procedure adopted in the bank in connection with Government payments by the bank, had stated that (according to the procedure in the bank) when the Government bills reach the officer in the payment section, he verifies the existence of the entry of the bill in question in the drawing schedules and passes the bill as fit for payment. He thus, accepted that existence of entry of the bill in the drawing schedule was necessary before concerned officer could pass it as fit for payment. That matter is, therefore, conclusively established. Since none of the seven bills for, said sums of Rs.4,950, Rs.1,000, Rs.10,700, Rs.6,000, Rs.115, Rs.7,513 and R6.4 935 are entered in drawing schedule of 2‑5‑1975 or any one of earlier dates, it is established that seven payments shown in Exh.P.1 Government debit scroll as Exh.P.A./1, as having been made to Government Departments were not authorized by the office of D.A.O.

13. Apart from that, the said two witnesses P.W.8 and P.W.10 have stated, that whenever a Government bill is presented in the District Accounts Office, the receiving clerk issues a token to the presenter, puts token number on the bill and the presenter of the bill comes to the said office end surrenders the token of the office of D.A.O. and gets the passed bill which bears the signature of D.A.O. in token of his having passed the bill and embossed seal of the office of District Accounts Office at the time of presentation of the bill) is also entered in the drawing schedule on the basis of which the bank has to make payment on passed bills presented by representatives of Government departments. P.W.8 Abbas Khan D.A.O. further stated that when the passed bills are presented in the bank for encashment the token number written on the passed bill is also noted against entry of bills made in the Government debit scroll. Truth of said statement of Abbas Khan P.W.8 is established by the admission of the Manager of the bank in letter Exh.P.19 that instructions to give the particulars alongwith token number of the office of D.A.O. as given on payment scroll are always followed by the bank and in case of the seven bills the numbers of tokens of District Accounts Office had been missed through an oversight. Even otherwise, it stands to reason that the bank should give the token number of District Accounts Office on the Government debit scroll to enable the District Accounts Officer to know the exact bill on which payment had been made by the bank on its behalf. Since no token number of the office of the D.A.O. are given in the Government debit scroll Exh.P.I, it is proved that if at all there were any bills against which payment was shown to have been made, those bills were not passed by the D.A.O. and payments made were unauthorized. P.W.8 Abbas Khan also deposed that in the present case, there is no token number written against disputed entries marked as Exh.P.A/1 in Exh.P.1, Government debit scroll, dated 2‑5‑1975 which showed that said bills had not been passed by District Accounts Officer. In this connection, I am aware of the circumstance that in the Government debit scroll P.1, no token number is given against two other Government bills in respect of amounts of Rs.525 and Rs.11.04 but that was another failing on the part of the bank and the said failing does not justify the failing of staff of the bank in giving no token number against seven entries of withdrawal from the bank of a huge sum of Rs.35,213 in aggregate. The omission of the staff of the bank to give token number against said two withdrawals of petty sums of money does not show that the instruction of bank to give token number and other particulars was not being followed and was not of any consequence. The bank is an agent of District Accounts Office and is bound to follow the instructions issued by the District Accounts Officer, as also conceded by the Manager of the branch in his letter Exh.P.19. Therefore, the mere fact that against two other entries of withdrawals of sum against Government bills, no token number was given by the bank officials in Government debit scroll Exh.P.1, does not detract from the correctness of my finding that if at all there were any Government bills presented to the bank against which payments had been made the said bills had not been passed by District Accounts Officer and, therefore, payments made on them were wholly unauthorised.

14. The next question which needs to be resolved is whether the paid Government bills which are called vouchers after payment by the bank were sent from the bank to the office of District Accounts Officer and received in that office or not. This is necessary not only because the three accused hailing from the bank in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. had taken the stand that vouchers had been lost in the office of District Accounts Officer and responsibility had been shifted on to their shoulder but also to resolve the consequential question whether as contemplated by one head of the charge there were absolutely no bills presented to the bank and payments shown in the Government debit scroll Exh.P.1 were not made against any such bill and were wholly fictitious entries and the three accused had in unison withdrawn the said sum and misappropriated the same in furtherance of their common intention to do so.

15. P.W.8 Abbas Khan, District Accounts Officer stated that Government debit scroll alongwith vouchers (paid Government bills) comes back to the District Accounts Office for preparation of monthly account of receipts and payments. P.W.10 Fazal Hussain District Accounts Officer also stated that after the payments of Government bills by the bank, all the paid bills, now called vouchers, are sent alongwith the Government debit scroll back to the District Accounts Office for maintenance of accounts in the District Accounts Office. P.W.8 Abbas Khan also deposed that against entries marked as P.A./1 on Government debit scroll P.1 there is a note written and initialled by accused Muhammad Siddiq on 6‑8‑1975 'vouchers not received for these bills' which is marked as Exh.P.W.8/1 on the said document and thereafter on 11‑8‑1975 Ali Ahmad recorded a note on Exh.P.1 that Sh. Muhammad Siddiq (accused) should make enquiry from the bank as ordered by District Accounts Officer which is Exh. D. B. and he himself recorded a note under his own signature on the said document on 20‑8‑1975 'vouchers for Rs.35,213 have not been received from the bank and the amount has been reduced from the bank total' which is marked as Exh.P.W.8/2. Similar is the statement of P.W.10 Fazal Hussain, District Accounts Officer who identified the writing of the said note to be in the hand of accused Muhammad Siddiq and initial under it to be his. The said notes thus, stand proved on record. There is also presumption of regularity of official acts. The contents of the said note prove that the vouchers had not been received in the District Accounts Office, Gujranwala alongwith the Government Debit Scroll P.1 and Summary P.2.

16. It is true that the Manager of N.B.P., Civil Lines Branch, Gujranwala, had in Exh.D.D. letter, dated 15‑8‑1975 taken the position that vouchers had been sent to the District Accounts Office on next day viz. 3‑5‑1975 but throughout the investigation, neither the three accused persons hailing from N.B.P. Civil Lines Branch, Gujranwala nor the Manager of the branch produced before the police any writing or any signature of any official of the office of District Accounts Office acknowledging the receipt of the said vouchers, alongwith debit scroll P.1 and summary P.2. It was stated by P.W.10 Fazal Hussain that according to the procedure, the bank sends register in which paid up bills are entered and according to instructions, the accountant who is supposed to check up whether the voucher entered in their register for return to the District Accounts office were duly entered there or not; receives the said vouchers and signs the said register acknowledging the receipt of the said vouchers. Even otherwise, since after checking, the‑bank has to account for any payment made without its bill having been passed or entered in the drawing schedule as deposed to by P.W.8 and P.W.10 the bank can deliver the vouchers to the District Accounts Office only against a receipt whether in a register or otherwise. In the circumstances, receipt in despatch register or some other register bearing the acknowledgement of District Accounts Office should have been produced by the said three accused before police during investigation. They, however, did not do so. The said receipt cannot be in the custody of the District Accounts Office and the said office could not produce it before the police. It were he three accused or the Manager who was expected to have its custody but none of them produced the same during investigation. The said three accused did not produce it even in evidence during the trial. Since the receipt bearing acknowledgement of delivery of said vouchers was not expected to be with complainant District Accounts Officer, he was not expected to produce it. It was for the said three accused to prove the receipt by the District Accounts Office of same. The onus under section 122 of Qanoon‑e‑Shahadat 1984 was on the accused as they were the persons concerned in the bank and it was within their special knowledge as to where the said receipt or register containing it was, but they failed to discharge the onus. In these circumstances, it is not proved that the said vouchers had been sent to and received in the District Accounts Office, Gujranwala.

17. I am aware of the objection that there was a delay of about two three months in pointing out to the bank that the said vouchers had not been sent to the District Accounts Office. This delay appears to be due to great arrears of work in the District Accounts Office as deposed to by P.W.8 Abbas Khan but whatever the cause was mere delay in pointing out the same in my opinion is not fatal to the said allegation in this case and does not show that the said vouchers had in fact been received in District Accounts Office because it was a matter which was not based on oral narration and a single document of acknowledgement of said vouchers could tell a contrary story. I have already held that the bank could not have delivered the vouchers in the District Accounts Office unless it obtained a receipt thereof. The said delay was, therefore, of no consequence and does not impinge upon the correctness of my finding that said vouchers had not been received in the District Accounts Office.

18. Here I may turn to the point raised by the learned counsel for the accused in this connection. His submission is that P.W.8 Abbas Khan had admitted that in Exh D.C. letter, dated 12‑8‑1975 written by him as District Accounts Officer, Gujranwala, to the Manager N.B.P., Civil Lines Branch, Gujranwala, he had complained only in respect of 6 bills and not in respect of 7th bill for a sum of Rs.1,000 and, therefore, voucher for the said sum was available in the District Accounts Office and had been sent to and received there, as in normal routine all vouchers for 2‑5‑1975 could be sent to and received in District Accounts Office in a single pack and single transaction, as also maintained by the Manager of the branch in Exh.P.W.6/A‑5, letter, dated 5‑1‑1976 by the said Manager to S.P., Gujranwala. I have considered the said point and have come to the conclusion that non‑description of a bill for a sum of Rs.1,000 in the letter by D.C. was just an omission by the typist and the D.A.O. in this typed letter. The reason for this is that there is an earlier note of 5‑8‑1975 by Muhammad Siddiq accused against Exh . P.A. /1 the entry of all the seven bills including one for the said sum of Rs.1,000 in Exh.P.1 Government Debit Scroll that vouchers for Payment for sums including the voucher for Rs.1,000 was not received and an earlier note, dated 11‑8‑1975 by Ali Ahmad Accountant that in accordance with order of District Accounts Officer Muhammad Siddiq should make enquiry from the bank as deposed to by P.W.8 Abbas Khan. The learned counsel had not cross‑examined the said witness to contest the correctness of the date of the note of Muhammad Siddiq accused and encircling line drawn by Muhammad Siddiq around the entries of said entries seven of which was to embrace within the ambit of his note, the of all the seven payments including one for Rs.1,000. The accused must, therefore, be deemed to have accepted that the said note by Muhammad Siddiq accused was of 6‑8 1975 and covered within its scope the said payment of Rs.1,000. In these circumstances, non‑description of payment of said sum of Rs.1,000 in the letter of District Accounts Officer which was written six days, thereafter i.e. 12‑8‑1.975 can be considered only to be an inadvertent omission. Therefore, it does not follow that voucher for payment of Rs.1,000 had been received in and was available in the office of the District Accounts Officer. The finding that the vouchers in respect of the said seven payments had not been sent to and had not been received in the District Accounts Office remains unshaken.

19. Here I pause for a moment to assess the cumulative effect of the above findings of mine in the light of accepted facts of the case. The three accused who are employees of the bank admitted in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. that payments for a total sum of Rs.35,213 had been made by them from the bank. The factum of payments stands proved otherwise also from the facts of the case which remain uncontested. It also stands proved from Exh.P.1 Government debit scroll produced by District Accounts Office. I have already held that drawing schedule, dated 2‑5‑1975, the only document which authorized the bank to make payment on such Government 'bills as stood entered in it, had been sent to and received in the bank. The seven payments, entry of which on Government debit scroll Exh.P.1 is marked as Exh .P.A./1 do not exist in the drawing schedule of either 2‑5‑1975 or of any earlier date available in register Exh.P.W.10/1 and, therefore, no authorization had been made by D.A.O., Gujranwala to make the said payments. To crown all the vouchers for the said seven payments had not been received in the District Accounts Office and said three accused have not produced any document bearing acknowledgement of receipt of the said seven vouchers by the District Accounts Office. There is no record in the office of D.A.O. of any bill for said sums having been presented to and passed by District Accounts Officer. The accused have not pointed out and produced in their defence any representative of any Government department to state that any of said payments had been made to him from the bank against a bill passed by District Accounts Officer, Gujranwala. The accused did not even prove that bills for the sum mentioned in Exh.P.A./1 on Government debit scroll P.1 were ever received in the bank and were processed there. It is in evidence of P.W.9, Mahboob Ali Shah, once Manager of the branch of N.B.P. who gave evidence in respect of procedure in the bank for Government payments, that when bills shown to have been passed from District Accounts Office are presented in the bank, the clerk who receives them, issues a, bank token to the presenter. If that was so then the accused should have produced the token registers or some other record in respect of issuance of said tokens to prove that said bills had been received in the bank. However, nothing in that regard was done. Apart from that in Exh.P.1 Government debit scroll no details of presenter of the bill, the department to which the bills related were given in column No. 2, bearing the heading 'Particulars'. The Manager of N.B.P., Civil Lines Branch had in Exh.P.19, his letter, dated 3‑9‑1975, addressed to Accounts Officer, Gujranwala, conceded that instructions to give particulars (apart from token number of the office of District Accounts Office) are to be followed by the bank. The only inference which can be drawn from the above accepted and proved facts taken conjointly is that no bills for amounts given in entry P.A./1 in Exh.P.1 were ever passed by or submitted in the bank for payment and that entries marked P.A./1 of seven payments in Government debit voucher Exh.P.1 are fictitious and the said sum of Rs.35,213 was withdrawn from the bank without any bills for the same having been submitted and after showing fictitious entries of such bills in Government debit scroll.

20. Now accused Muhammad Asghar Butt, Nazar Karim and Abbas Raza were working respectively as Supervisor, Officer, and Cashier in payment section of N.B.P. Civil Lines Branch, Gujranwala, on 2‑5‑1975 as deposed to by P.W.7 Muhammad Munir, a clerk working in the said branch on the said day. P.W.9 Mahboob Ali Shah, who had worked temporarily as Manager, N.B.P., Civil Lines Branch, Gujranwala, described the procedure followed on presentation in the branch of the bills passed by the District Accounts Officer, Gujranwala. He deposed that on receipt of passed bills, the clerk issues a token to the presenter and makes an entry in the Government debit scroll and sends the bills to concerned officer who after verifying the signature of District Accounts Officer and after verifying the entry of the bills in the drawing schedule passes the bill as valid and sends the bill to the cashier for payment. According to this evidence, the clerk who receive the bills, the officer who passes the bills as fit for payment and cashier are the three persons‑involved in each transaction of Government payment and it is clear that no payment could have been made without papers having passed through their hand. If, therefore, any false payment without any bills was to be shown to have been made, it could not be made without direct involvement of said three employees of the bank. The said three persons together could do so in pursuance of their common intention to rob the bank. Seen in this light, the three accused employees of the bank appear to stand connected with the fraudulent withdrawal of the said total sum of Rs.35,213 and its misappropriation by them. However, Muhammad Asghar Butt, though designated as Supervisor in the payment section was a clerk and P.W.' Kanwar Munir had stated that besides him it was the duty of two other employees, namely, one Wahab and one Muhammad Mushtaq also to prepare Government debit scroll and for that matter to receive passed Government bills from presenter. It is, therefore, doubtful that he was doing the duty of receiving passed bills in the bank and cannot be conclusively said to have joined the other two accused in withdrawing and defalcating the said sum of Rs.35,213. So far as accused Nazar Karim Bhatti and Abbas Raza are concerned, they were respectively officer and paying cashier in payment section of the said branch. According to P.W.7, all the accused sat together in payment section located in half of the Verandah. It was, therefore, impossible for either the cashier and the officer to have not known what was known to the other. No fats, payment could have been shown unless those two persons had common intention. Neither accused Nazar Karim could have withdrawn any sum without active collaboration of Abbas Raza Khan paying cashier no Abbas Raza Khan could have taken the said sum from the bank without active collusion of Nazar Karim Bhatti. Inference of the common intention between the said two accused is an inference which necessarily flow out of the facts of the case. In the circumstances of the present case I am of the view that accused Nazar Karim Bhatti and Abbas Raz Khan withdrew the said sums of money aggregating Rs.35,213 from the bank without any passed bills for the same having been submitted the branch, shared the said sum and misappropriated the same and arranged to show falsely in the Government debit scroll P.1 the payments against Government bills. The District Accounts Officer had as per EXh.P.W.8/2, his note, dated 20‑8‑1975 on Government debit voucher B.1, reduced the sum of Rs.35,213 from the sum withdrawn from bank in Government account. This resulted in loss to the N.B.P, Civil Lines Branch for the said sum. The accused had dominion over the said sum of the bank. They had not been able to account for the same I and had misappropriated the same and had thus, committed offence of criminal breach of trust.

21. There is no doubt that there is no direct evidence available in respect of the two accused having received the said sums aggregating Rs.35,213 and having misappropriated the same and the prosecution story is incomplete to that extent but as held in Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others P L D 1962 S C 502, the Court must not be deterred by the incompleteness of the tail from drawing inference that properly flow from the facts and circumstances. In Abdul Majid v. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Government of East Pakistan P L D 1964 S C 422 it was held that in considering a crime, a Court is well‑advised to examine the circumstances of the act and its result for the purpose of gauging the natural probabilities. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the State v. Manzoor Ahmad P L D 1966 S C 664 that in a case where there is no direct evidence, it is not sufficient to say that since there is no direct evidence to connect anyone with the felonous act, the guilt cannot be fixed and it is precisely in such cases that the Court should conceive it to be its duty to. examine the probabilities in the light of indirect evidence available in the case and surrounding circumstances. It is in the light of the guiding principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the said cases that I have gauged natural probabilities and drawn the inferences that properly flow out of the evidence on record and it is on their basis that I have come to the conclusion that the said two accused Nazar Karim Bhatti and Abbas Raza Khan had committed the offence of criminal breach of trust.

22. I am aware that Government debit scroll Exh.P.1 has not been proved to have been written by any of the accused as would follow presently from discussion made in the remaining portion of the judgment but that would not dislodge my finding that accused Nazar Karim and Abbas Raza had committed the offence of criminal breach of trust which stands proved on other independent evidence detailed above. The proof of Government debit scroll having been either made, signed or initialled by the accused would have been an additional proof of the said offence having been committed by the accused but the facts and circumstances noted by me earlier are sufficient for me to come to the conclusion that the offence of criminal breach of trust was committed by the said two accused.

23. In holding that accused Abbas Raza Khan Cashier had also committed the offence of criminal breach of trust I have duly considered the point raised by the learned counsel for the accused that P.W.9 Mahboob Ali Shah had stated that the cashier was duty bound to make payment to the person who produced token before him. However, it must be noted that I have held that no Government bills were ever produced in. the bank, and the said sums of money coming to a total sum of Rs.35,213 had been withdrawn fraudulently from the bank only by making a show of its having been withdrawn on the basis of certain bills. It is obvious that Abbas Raza Khan Cashier who was supposed to make payment after getting the signature of presenter of Government bill on the said bill had paid sums without any bill having been received by him. Thus, the withdrawal of said sums had been done by two accused Nazar Karim Bhatti and Abbas Raza in collusion with each other acting under their common intention. It is clear that in the light of the finding that there were no bills presented in the bank the question that Cashier Abbas Raza Khan was bound to make a payment to a person producing token is wholly irrelevant and does not show the said finding to be incorrect.

24. The accused Nazar Karim Bhatti and Abbas Raza were employees of the Bank and were, therefore, public servants as laid down in explanation to section 161, P.P.C. as amended upto date. They committed the offence of criminal breach of trust in their capacities as public servants which is punishable under section 409, P.P.C. 1, therefore. convict them of the said offence.

25. As for 2^nd head of the charge namely one for offence under section 467, P.P.C. in Government bills I have given detailed reasons for having come to the conclusion that there were no Government bills for the said sums of money at all and only fictitious entries of different sums aggregating Rs.35,213 had been made in the Government debit scroll. There is, therefore, no question of any forgery having been committed in fabricating Government bills which never existed. Ash regards fictitious and false entries of said sums of money made in Exh.P.1 Government debit scroll, P.W.9 Mahboob Ali Shah no doubt stated that the clerk who received the Government bills used to make entries in the Government debit scroll but there is no evidence on record pin‑pointing the clerk who had done so. P.W.7 Kanwar Munir stated that it was the duty of three employees of the Bank on 2‑5‑1975 to prepare Government debit scroll and one of them was accused Muhammad Asghar Butt but there were also one Wahab, and one Muhammad Mushtaq who was cited as P.W. in this case but had left for Germany and in these circumstances it was doubtful that Exh. P.A./1, the disputed seven entries in Exh.P.1. the Government debit scroll were in the hand of accused Muhammad Asghar Butt. In his statement under section 342. Cr.P.C. Muhammad Asghar Butt had no doubt admitted that he had duty of preparing Government debit scrolls but that admission when seen in the light of question asked from him was to the effect that he had the said duty alongwith Nazar Karim Bhatti. In these circumstances, it is not, proved that Muhammad Asghar Butt had the exclusive duty to write the said Government debit scroll and disputed seven entries which related to wholly fictitious non‑existent bills were in his hand. The Investigating Officer had taken the specimens of writing and signature of accused Muhammad Asghar Butt on specimen sheets Exhs.P.3 to P.18 (also marked as Exh.P.W.12/2 to Exh.P.W.12/17) and Exh.P.W.11/1 to EXh.P.W.11/6 in order to get the suspected signature and writing on Exh.P.1, Government debit scroll compared with the said specimens but the said specimen and Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2. the questioned documents were returned as per letter, dated 26‑10‑1977 of Forensic Science Laboratory Lahore (which is on record) on the ground that further material was required for comparison. No further specimens called for as per the said letter were collected nor were the documents sent again to the Handwriting Expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore. For the same reason no Handwriting Expert appeared as a prosecution witness in this case. There is, therefore, no conclusive evidence to establish beyond any shadow of doubt that the accused Muhammad Asghar Butt had made these entries in Exh.P.1 Government debit scroll of 2‑5‑1975.

26. According to P.W.9, the officer of the bank was to verify the correctness of the entries made in the Government debit scroll. The only officer in the payment section of the said branch who could verify the said entries was Nazar Karim Bhatti. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that no one proved that initials against disputed entries were of Nazar Karim Bhatti there is no escape from the conclusion that he verified the said entries and thus was a party with anyone of three persons namely Muhammad Asghar Butt, Wahab or. Muhammad Mushtaq, who had made the said fake entries in Exh.P.1 Government debit scroll. The offence of making fake entries does not fall within the ambit of definition of forgery. It, however, is covered by the offence of falsification of accounts punishable under section 4117‑A, P.P.C. The, accused Nazar Karim Bhatti acted in furtherance of his common intention with the unknown culprit out of the said three persons who made the said fake entries and thus committed offence under section 477‑A/34 P.P.C. and I convict him of the same accordingly. The accused Abbas Raza Khan was Cashier and according to evidence had nothing to do with preparation of said Government debit scroll. He is not therefore, proved to have committed offence under section 467 or 477‑A, P.P.C. and I acquit him of the same.

27. Having already held that accused Nazar Karim Bhatti and Abbas Raza Khan had acted under common intention to withdraw the said sum totalling Rs.35,213 and defalcated the same jointly, there is nothing to restrain me from coming to the finding that the accused had drawn pecuniary advantage from the said transaction by abusing their official position. I therefore, convict both of them for offence under section 5 of Act II of 1947 also.

28. So far as the accused Muhammad Siddiq is concerned, he was e clerk on 2‑5‑1975 in the District Accounts Office, as deposed to by P.W.8 Abbas Khan. The said witness also stated that debit scroll used to be received in his office by accused Muhammad Siddiq and‑on its receipt it was his duty to tally the amounts on vouchers with the scroll on the same or at the most next day. He also stated that accused Muhammad Siddiq, pointed out only on 5‑8‑1975 by virtue of note recorded by him on Government debit voucher Exh.P.1 that the voucher for even disputed payments shown on Government debit scroll Exh.P.1 marked Exh P.A./1 had not been received. Allegation in the challan filed by the police was that this serious delay of three months was calculated to show that accused Muhammad Siddiq was party alongwith his co‑accused in the act of fraudulent withdrawal of sum of 86.35,213 from the bank and its misappropriation. In my opinion, however, mere delay in checking the correctness of entries in Exh.P.1 Government debit scroll against vouchers and further in pointing out the factum of non‑receipt in District Accounts Office of vouchers for the said seven entries does not connect accused Muhammad Siddiq conclusively with any scheduled offences with which he has been charged in this case. P.W.8 Abbas Khan had stated that after taking over the charge as D.A.O., Gujranwala on 1‑8‑1975, he had discovered that even documents of the month of April, had not been despatched and these were despatched after his taking over on 1‑8‑1975. It is clear, therefore, that there were serious arrears of work when Abbas Khan took over as District Accounts Officer on 1‑8‑1975 it appears that on account of consequent rush in District Accounts Office, accused Muhammad Siddiq could not check the entries of the scroll and did not discover that relevant vouchers had not been received in District Accounts Office. The delay thus caused did not disclose any guilty conscience on the part of the accused Muhammad Siddiq. There is no evidence on record proving any overt act on the part of accused Muhammad Siddiq which showed that he had anything to do with the other accused who were employees of the Civil Lines Branch of the Bank. There is no act of omission or commission proved on record showing that he shared common intention with the other accused who were employed in the bank and had withdrawn and defalcated the total sum of Rs.35,213. P.W.10 Fazal Hussain objected to Muhammad Siddiq being described as an accused person in his statement inasmuch as according to him he had merely pointed out on 6‑8‑1975 that vouchers relating to seven payments shown id Exh.P.1 Government debit scroll had not been received in the office and due to that reason in his estimation he was not an accused person. There is nothing to show that the said accused was in league with accused hailing from the bank and had obtained any pecuniary advantage. No scheduled offence is proved to have been committed by, him. I, therefore, acquit him of the scheduled offences under sections 409, 467, P.P.C. and offence under section 5 of Act II of 1947 with which he had been charged in this case.

29. In the result, accused Muhammad Siddique is acquitted of all the scheduled offences with which he had been charged in this case and accused Muhammad Asghar Butt is acquitted of said offences on account of benefit of doubt given to him while accused Nazar Karim Bhatti is convicted of offences .under sections 409/34, 477‑A, P.P.C. and offence under section 5 of Act II of 1947 and accused Abbas Raza Khan is convicted of offences under section 409/34, P.P.C. and section 5 of Act II of 1947.

30. As for punishment, I sentence accused Nazar Karim Bhatti for offence under section 409/34, P.P.C. read with section 6(2) of Ordinance IX of 1984 to R.I. for 8 years and to a fine for a sum of Rs.90,000 and in default of payment of said fine to further R.I. for two years and for offence under section 477‑A, P.P.C., read with section 6(2) of Ordinance IX of 1984, 1 sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for six years and to a fine of Rs.80,000 and in defiant if of payment of said fine to further R.I. for 14 years and for offence under section 5 of Act II of 1947 I sentence him to R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.72,000 (Seventy‑two thousand only) and in default of payment of said fine to further R.I. for 11 years.

31. I sentence the accused Abbas Raza Khan for offence under section 409/34, P.P.C. to R.I. for 8 years and to a fine for a sum of Rs.90,000 (ninety thousand only) and in default of payment of said fine to a further period of two years and for offence under section 5 of Act II of 1947, I sentence the accused Abbas Raza to R.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs.72,000 (Seventy‑two thousand only) and in default of payment of said fine to further R.I for 1 years.

32. All the sentences of the two accused shall run concurrently. They shall be given the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. and the period of detention if any suffered by them as pre‑trial and under trial prisoners shall be deducted from the period of their sentences. Out of the sum of fine recovered from the accused, sum of Rs.35,213 shall be given to N.B.P., Civil Lines Branch. Gujranwala to compensate the said branch for its loss and the remaining sum shall by confiscated to the State.

33. Muhammad Asghar Butt and Muhammad Siddiq are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged. Accused Nazar Karim Bhatti and Abbas Raza Khan are also on bail. They shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve their sentences.

S.A. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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