Ms. SAEEDA BILQUEES vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh, Karachi, which convicted the appellant under sections 406 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment and fine. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the allegations of criminal breach of trust and forgery against the appellant, particularly regarding the alleged opening of a bogus joint bank account and fraudulent encashment of cheques without sending disputed signatures to a handwriting expert. The Sindh High Court held that in the absence of positive incriminating evidence and failure to obtain expert opinion on the alleged forged signatures, the charge of forgery remained unproven. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and discharged the appellant's bail bonds, noting the prolonged agony of an eighteen-year delay. The key principle laid down is that allegations of forgery cannot be sustained without conclusive positive evidence, such as forensic handwriting expert reports, when the primary charge relies on fraudulent document execution.
- Can a conviction for forgery be sustained when disputed signatures are not sent to a handwriting expert for comparison?
- Whether failure to produce positive incriminating evidence vitiates a conviction under section 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does an inordinate delay of eighteen years in concluding trial and appellate proceedings constitute a relevant factor in evaluating criminal cases?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' SYED ZAKIR HUSSAIN, J.--- This Appeal bearing No,133 of 1999 has been preferred by the appellant, challenging the judgment dated 5-10-1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh, Karachi holding the appellant guilty of the offences under sections 406, P.P.C. And 471, P.P.C. And sentenced her to suffer R.I. For a term of one year on each count and pay fine of Rs,60,000 for each offence and in default to suffer term of two months' R.I.
2. ' The facts forming the background of this appeal briefly stated, are that one Muhammad Ishaque Abbasi, being Attorney, engaged the appellant as Advocate for withdrawal of the rent amount, for and on behalf of two brothers Tariq Atta and Aijaz Atta, residents of Lahore, running a hotel by the name of "Palace Hotel" in Karachi, in which, Messrs Blue Lines, were one of their tenants, who had deposited rent in their favour in the Court of IIIrd. Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, South, Karachi. The appellant served the said client properly until August/September, 1992, when the appellant received from the said Court three cross cheques towards the said rent amount, respectively for Rs,15,000, Rs,15,000 and Rs,30,000 totalling Rs,60,000. Appellant did not hand it over to her client and instead encashed it for her personal gain by playing fraud of opening and operating a joint Bank Account in her name and that of her client Tariq Atta by use of photocopy of his NIC already with her being as Advocate. On acquiring such knowledge, the said Attorney made an application to the Crime Circle of the F.I.A. Karachi, which after thorough inquiry, registered the F.I.R. Against the appellant under sections 406, 468 and 471, P.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted in the learned trial Court which framed the charge and having recorded the evidence, held the appellant 'guilty' and consequently convicted and sentenced her by way of the impugned judgment accordingly.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Deputy Attorney-General and have perused the record. The matter pertains to the year 1992, the impugned judgment, was passed on 5-10-1999, the trial concluded in seven long years which followed another 11 years by filing present appeal. The appellant had undergone mental agony of 18 years.
4. ' On merits, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a point that the allegations of forgery/fraud by opening and operating bogus account etc. Are not proved by the prosecution at all against the appellant. The Investigating Officer of the case obtained specimen signatures of Tariq Atta for expert's comparison purpose but the did not dispatch the same to the expert together with the specimen signatures of the appellant and alleged forged signatures of Tariq Ata having not sent to the Handwriting Expert the allegation of forgery in absence of the relevant material, cannot be proved, therefore, cannot be relied upon.
5. ' The impugned judgment of the learned trial Court as per the learned counsel, are against the law being based on no positive incriminating evidence against the appellant charged with forgery. The learned DAG has conceded to the aforesaid legal position and does not support the impugned judgment on such score.
6. ' We therefore, for the aforesaid reasons have allowed the appeal by our short order dated 31-3- 2010. The appellant is on bail, her bail bonds are cancelled and the surety is discharged.