Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. D‑40 of 1986, decided on 27th July, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 468 &471‑‑Forgery, offence of‑‑Contention that accused could not be found guilty of any offence punishable under S. 471, P.P.C. if charge under S. 468, P.P.C. against him failed‑‑Contention, held, misconceived and both charges could be proved independently.

‑‑‑S. 477‑A‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑Accused failed to credit various amount received by him from account‑holders in their respective accounts and further made no entry regarding amount so received in ledger‑‑By falsification of ledger, accused, held, intended to defraud Bank or Account‑holders and as such charge under S. 477‑A, P.P.C. was fully brought home to accused.

A.Q. Halepota for Appellant.

I.H. Zaidi for the State.

Dates of hearing: 29th, 30th April and 5th May, 1986.

‑The appellant has been convicted for offences under sections 408, 471 and 477‑A, P.P.C. by the Special Court of Sind (Banks) Karachi. For the first mentioned offence he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,25,000 and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for one year. He has been sentenced, to suffer further R.I. for one year and four years for offences under sections 471 and 477‑A, P.P.C. respectively. The substantive sentences awarded in respect of all these offences are to run concurrently.

In 1977 the appellant was serving in the National Bank of Pakistan Shahpur Chakar Branch as Manager. During his employment as such the appellant hatched a plan to defraud the said branch by various means and in furtherance of the said plan he withdrew various amounts of money from the accounts of account‑holders by means of forged cheques and withdrawal forms. He also failed to deposit certain amounts of money in the accounts of the account‑holders after receiving the same from them. The appellant thus committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a total amount of Rs.2,65,400 in the said branch over which the appellant had domain as an employee of the bank. The appellant in pursuance of his object also used forged cheques and withdrawal forms as genuine after having forged the signatures of the account‑holders thereon and also falsified ledgers pertaining to the accounts of such account‑holders.

The report in respect of the fraud was lodged with the F.I.A. by Ali, Akbar Sial who took over as Manager of the said branch of National Bank of Pakistan in July, 1977. The matter was then investigated by F.I.A. and the appellant was finally challaned to stand his trial before the Special Judge (Central). However, on promulgation of Ordinance IX of 1984 the case was transferred to the Special Court of Sind (Banks), Karachi.

In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant completely denied these allegations. According to him he was falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity with Ali Akbar Sial at whose instance the other witnesses had also deposed against him. The appellant also examined two witnesses in his defence.

It has not been disputed that the appellant was working as Manager of the said branch of the National Bank of Pakistan when the offences were allegedly committed. The fact that the appellant misappropriated certain amounts of money from the accounts of different account‑holders in the said branch is also not denied as indeed misappropriation of money to the extent of Rs.10,775.25 was conceded on the appellant's behalf by his learned counsel Mr. Abdul Qadir Halepota. However, what has not been conceded is the charge that the appellant had misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,04,375.25 or that he used any forged documents as genuine or that he falsified any ledgers with intent to defraud. According to Mr. Halepota, in view of the fact that the appellant has been acquitted by the learned Presiding Officer of the charge of forgery, he could not be convicted of an offence punishable under section 471, P.P.C. As regards the offence punishable under section 477‑A of the P.P.C. the contention of Mr. Halepota was that the same also had not been proved as the prosecution had failed to prove that there was any intention to defraud.

After going through the evidence of the witnesses we find that none of these contentions has force. According to Akbar Ali Sial (P.W.1) when he took over as Manager of the said branch of the Bank, the appellant suddenly left the branch without handing over its charge to the witness which was unusual. It was then discovered that Rs.5,000 which had been deposited by the Manager of Habib Bank in the banks' account in the said branch had not been entered in the statement of account. Thereafter many account‑holders came to check their accounts and then it was discovered that various amounts of money deposited by them were either not credited into their respective accounts or had been unauthorisedly withdrawn through forged cheques and withdrawal forms. The evidence of this witness is fully corroborated by P.Ws. Muhammad Rafiq Butt (P.W. 6) Chaneser (P.W.14), Nihal (P.W.5) and Ganwar Khan (P.W. 11) all of whom were account‑holders in the said branch of the bank. According to their depositions the appellant had received the various amounts deposited by them and had signed slips in token of their receipt but the amounts received were not credited into their respective accounts. The evidence of these witnesses is further supported by that of Muhammad Yousuf (P.W.3) and Manzoor Ahmad (P.W.9) who had worked with the appellant in the said branch and identified his signatures on the counter‑foil slips issued by him. The last two witnesses were not even cross‑examined by the appellant and their statements went unchallenged.

Besides these witnesses the prosecution have also examined Dost Muhammad (P.W.7), Muhammad Siddiq (P.W.13), Ghulam Mustafa Sanghrani (P.W.8), Sain Bux (P.W.4), and Haji Lal Bux Sanghrani (P.W.12) who, except for Ghulam Mustafa Sanghrani, were account‑holders in the said branch of the bank and who had discovered that various amounts of money totalling Rs.1,91,025 had been unauthorisedly withdrawan from their respective accounts in the said branch. According to Ghulam Mustafa Sanghrani, his wife, daughter and nephew had respective accounts in the said branch of the bank out of which Rs.40,000 had been unauthorisedly withdrawn, each from the account of his wife and daughter and Rs.45,000 were withdrawn from the account of his nephew. The various cheques and other documents through which such amounts were withdrawn bore signatures of the appellant which were also identified by P.Ws. Muhammad Younus and Manzoor Ahmed. The learned Presiding Officer has however, found that defalcations in respect of an amount of Rs.1,31,000 had been established through the depositions of P.Ws. Dost Muhammad, Muhammad Siddiq, Sain Bux and Lal Bux Sanghrani who were actual account‑holders in the said branch of the bank. The signatures of the appellant on the cheques and the withdrawal forms coupled with the evidence of the above witnesses clearly indicate that the appellant had himself withdrawn the said amount of Rs.1,31,000 from the accounts of the said witnesses by using cheques and withdrawal forms with forged signatures of the said witnesses thereon. Mr. Halepota, however, still maintains that the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the point is not sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt, although the evidence regarding various defalcations occurring in the said branch of the bank has not been disputed. Although the contention has no force in view of the evidence referred to above, but even otherwise it is hard to accept that in a small branch of the bank which according to the evidence had only four or five persons working in it at the relevant time, so many defalcations could not be detected by the appellant when he had full control of the branch as its Manager. The appellant, therefore, has been rightly found guilty of criminal breach of trust in respect of the above‑mentioned amount by the learned Presiding Officer.

As far as the charge of forgery is concerned, the appellant has been' acquitted of such charge by the learned Presiding Officer as according to; him there was no direct evidence to prove that the appellant had himself forged the signatures of the account‑holders on cheques or withdrawal forms in question. According to Mr. Halepota the appellant cannot bet found guilty of any offence punishable under section 471, P.P.C. if charge under section 468, P.P.C. against him has failed. There appears to be not force in the argument as both such charges can be proved independently of each other. Since there is evidence to indicate that the appellant had used forged cheques and withdrawal forms for the purpose of committing the alleged offence he can be found guilty of such offence alone. The argument of Mr. Halepota is, therefore, devoid of force.

The charge under section 477‑A, P.P.C. also seems to have been sufficiently established in view of the evidence that the appellant had failed to credit certain amounts received by him from the account holders. Reference in this respect can be made to the evidence of Nihal, Muhammad Rafiq and Ganwar Khan according to whom the various amounts of money deposited by them in the said branch of the bank were not credited into their respective accounts. Their statements stand fully corroborated by the evidence of Ali Akbar Sial. The appellant, therefore, after having received various amounts on behalf of the said account holders failed to make proper entries in respect thereof in the ledgers and as such the charge in respect of falsification of ledgers also stands proved. The falsification of ledgers was obviously with intent to defraud the bank or the account‑holders. The charge under section 477‑A, P.P.C. has, therefore, been fully brought home to the appellant.

An argument was also raised by Mr. Halepota that more than three offences of criminal breach of trust allegedly committed by the appellant could not have been tried together by the learned Presiding Officer in view of section 234, Cr.P.C. Against this the contention of Mr. I.H. Zaidi was firstly that the offences alleged against the appellant were committed by him in the same transaction and secondly, that even if there was defect in the charge, the same has been made curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. after amendment. In view of this statement Mr. Halepota did not press the point further.

The two defence witnesses, namely Ahmed Ali and Muhammad Khan were account‑holders in the said branch of National Bank. Accordingly to them P.W. Ali Akbar Sial had asked them to lodge complaint against the appellant but they refused to oblige as they had no complaint against the appellant. The evidence of these witnesses has hardly any bearing on that of the prosecution witnesses according to which the guilt of the appellant has been fully established.

We, therefore, find no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed and the conviction and the sentence awarded by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court (Banks) are maintained.

S.G.D./M‑ 54/K 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.