RAZA-E-PANJTAN ALVI Versus STATE
The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge (Central), Karachi, for offences under section 409, P. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to suffer R. I. for 3 years, and to pay a (fine of Rs. 2,75,000 or in default to suffer R. I. for 3 years. There was a further direction that out of the fine imposed, if realised, Rs. 2,70,000 will be paid to the National Bank of Pakistan.
2. Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The prosecution story is that the appellant was the Manager of the National Bank of Pakistan, Matli, in July and August 1967, and had granted loans of Rs. 10,000 each under the Public Credit Department Scheme to a number of persons without the prior sanction of the Principal Officer, of the National Bank of Pakistan, apart from other irregularities, and that the persons in question were just fictitious. Words of these irregularities having reached the bank authorities, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by one Shahid Hussain Khan, the Regional Manager of the Bank, who lodged this report with the S. P., Hyderabad vide letter dated 3rd November, 1967. The Special Police after due investigation challaned the case against the appellant on 5‑2‑1969.
4. The case of the appellant was that 26 persons out of the alleged 2 persons who obtained the loans fraudulently, were harts and employees of Mir Ijaz Ali Talpur and the latter had stood guarantee for them. In his statement, he has nothing specific about Mohammad Hanif, except that I was also associated with Mir Ijaz Ali Talpur. But it is an admitted position that no guarantee was available on his behalf from any quarter.
5. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses including Mir Ijaz Ali Talpur who, at the material time, was the Parliamentary Secretary of the Central Government and a member of the National Assembly. He has stated that he had to help persons from his constituency, and when the Public Credit Department Scheme had been launched, he had guaranteed some advances paid to some small businessmen of his constituency. The appellant had come to him with certain papers and asked him to sign them for 20 such businessmen. He had, therefore, signed all the forms put up before him and the appellant took his signatures on bank guarantee forms and told him that these were forms for the 20 men. Relying on the appellant, he had signed the forms and did not even bother to count the number of the forms. He went on to say that in ail these cases, iris signature were taken on demand note, D. P. Note Delivery letters, Form K, Form A and other documents. All these documents were blank at the time of the affixing his signatures. According to him, the persons did not exist in his constituency at all. Mir Ijaz Ali Talpur in his letter to Mr. Hidayatullah Jan, the Supdt. P. C. Advances, National Bank of Pakistan, dated 18th August, 1967, which is on the record, had however assured "that the loans granted to the public in my constituency for which I have already stood surety and signed bank forms, will be repaid within the stipulated time". He went on to say, "I may add here that it will be fn the fitness of things that Mr. Alvi, Manager, and his staff should remain there for easy recovery of the loans" He never even remotely mooted out at that stage that these persons were fictitious and that he had been duped into signing the guarantee forms, he was bound by the terms of his choice, and he could not be heard to say that he had been a victim himself of a confidence trick. The fact also is that Air Ijaz Ali Talpur was one of the biggest landlords of the Hyderabad District and also a figure of some political importance. If the appellant on the basis of these guarantee forms duly executed, advanced the loans; that would not constitute criminal breach of trust only because of some other irregularities. I might as well mention that an effort was made by P. W. Syed Nasir Ali to say that it was the appellant who had secured the money from the cheques, but that was not his version before the Police. The belated attempt to establish that the money allegedly advanced to the 26 borrowers, for whom Mir Ijaz Ali Talpur had executed guarantee forms, bad actually been collected by the appellant himself and misappropriated later on, can not pass muster,
6. It is true that there were certain irregularities in granting these loans, inasmuch as there was no sanction of the Controlling Officer, and no stock report was obtained by the appellant, who had not even verified the stock. But in the circumstances disclosed, in regard to 26 borrowers for whom Mir Ijaz Ali Talpur had stood guarantor, I am of the opinion that the offence under section 409, P. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, will not be attracted.
7. In regard to Mohammad Hanif, there was no guarantee form executed by any body, apart from other irregularities referred to earlier.
8. On 4‑8‑1975, an application under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh then appearing for the appellant, to the effect that certified copies of documents attached there with, be allowed to be filed. This included a copy of the xe parte judgment and decree against Mohammad Hanif, receipt of the decretal amount of Rs. 12,852.32 allegedly issued by the National Bank of Pakistan, two letters from the Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, confirming receipt of the decretal amount and a certified copy of the Order of the Civil Judge. Hyder abad on the application under Order XXI, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Proce dure, with the prayer for certifying or recording the payment or Adjustment of the National Bank of Pakistan, the decree‑holder. In this context, it might be mentioned that the Civil Judge for reasons given by him had refused to certify on record the payment. On the next date, an application was put up for summoning Mohammad Hanif as a witness on behalf of the appellant and was allowed. He was never summoned as such, and Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh who was appearing for the appellant, withdrew from the appeal.
9. The receipt alleged to have been issued by the Bank and the letters of the Manager per se will not be of any assistance, because if a document is alleged to be signed or written by any person, the signature or the handwrit ing of so much of the document as is alleged in that person's handwriting, must be proved to be in his own handwriting. That was not even attempted to be done.
10. Rightly or wrongly, the Civil Judge refused to certify the payment either. Any way, even temporary misappropriation, or allowing any body else to do so, will constitute the offences charged against the appellant. I am therefore, of the opinion that the offences under section 409 P . P. C. read with section 5, (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 stand established against the appellant in regard to the sum of Rs. 10,000 only allegedly advanced to Mohammad Hanif. His conviction however in regard to the sum of Rs. 2,60,000.00 granted to 26 other person:; cannot be main twined, and is set aside.
11. It is an admitted position that the appellant was dismissed from the service after a departmental inquiry some time in 1968. It would also appear that after the conviction he had remained in jail for some time, when bail was ranted to him on medical ground. The record also shows that the appellant's wife had to undergo an operation and had become totally blind. He has suffered enough. I will, therefore, remit the substantive sentence and reduce the fine to Rs. 10,000.00 only. The appellant is permitted to deposit this fine within 30 days from today. In default of the payment of tine, he will surrender to his bonds and undergo R. I. for 6 month. With this modification, the appeal stands dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.