ABDUL RASHID Versus THE STATE

1. SYED ABDUR REHMAN, J.‑‑ This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks) Karachi whereby he convicted the appellant under section 403, P.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs.3,80,000 in default of payment of fine R.I for six months more.0ut of the fine, if recovered a sum of Rs.1,27,000 was ordered to be paid to the bank as compensation for the loss suffered.

2. As amended charge was framed against the appellant and the acquitted accused by the trial Court stating in a nutshell the facts of the prosecution case, which reads as under:‑-

"AMENDED CHARGES

3. I, Justice Retd. Z . A . Channa, Presiding Officer Special Court (Offences in Banks) Karachi, do hereby charge you accused (1) Abdul Rashid s/o Abdul Rauf and (2) Mohammad Yasin Akhtar son of Nizamuddin as follows:‑---

4. That you accused Abdul Rashid, having business dealings with Nitco Information, for supply of materials on behalf of Arco Shoes, during the period from 22nd August, 1983 to 20th November, 1983 received (1) Cheque No.062300 (for an amount of Rs.1,500) Offences (3) Cheque No. 083509 (for an amount of Rs.1,000), (4) Cheque No.083528 (for an amount of Rs.1,000), (5) Cheque No.083517 (for an amount of Rs.2,000) and (6) Cheque No.083539 (for an amount of Rs.2,000) from M/s. Nitco Information, which cheques were cashed by you from the account of the said firm with the Bunder Road Branch of U.B.L. for enhance amounts of Rs.13,000, 40,500, 40,000 40,000, 20,000 and 12,000 and thereby you criminally misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,55,000 and that further on 24‑7‑1983 you encashed Cheque No.062270 for an amount of Rs.10,000 and on 31‑7‑1983 you encashed Cheque No. 062272 for an amount of Rs.25,000 both from the account of M/s. Nitco Information with the U.B.L. and which cheques you dishonestly acquired or were stolen, and thereby you committed misappropriation of a total amount of Rs.1,90,000 and thus committed an offence punishable under section 403, P.P.C. and within the cognizance of this Court.

5. And you accused Mohammad Yasin Akhtar, as C.D. Account Officer incharge, `abetted accused Abdul Rashid in mis appropriating the above total amount of Rs.1,90,000 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 403, P.P.C. read with section 109, P.P.C. and within the cognizance of this Court."

6. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. He admitted to have received the cheques from Nitco Information and to have got the same cashed. He however denied that he had tampered with the amounts in words and/or figures thereby inflated the same or to have received the inflated amounts.

7. The prosecution has examined Javed Aziz Khan complainant, who has produced (i) opening of account form of M/s. Nitco Information, (ii) the advice to the Bank from the said firm regarding joint operation of the account, (iii) the alleged tempered cheques drawn on the account of the said company which was received for collection from the Talpur Road Branch, (iv) the 8 cheques through which the amount of Rs.2,00,500 is alleged to have been misappropriated by the accused, (v) the two letters of Nitco Information to the Bank giving particulars of the cheques which are claimed to have been tampered with, (vii) the written report made to the F .I . A . by Javed Aziz Khan, (ix) the statement of bank account of M/s. Nitco Information. from June 1983 to December 1983, (x) the specimen signature card of the partners of M/s. Nitco Information authorised to operate their Bank account and (xi) Report of A.B. Chugtai (a private Handwriting Expert, who was not examined). The prosecution also examined Cashier Mohammad Rafique, two partners of Nitco Information i.e. Mahboob Khan Durrani and Mahmood Noorani, and the Investigating Officer, Inspector Safdar Alvi Khan. P.W. Mahboob Khan Durrani produced counterfoils of the cheques issued by them from 5‑4‑1983 to 18‑4‑1984 the letter of Nitco Information dated 31‑12‑1983, containing particulars of the 8 cheques which had been tampered with and forged, their ledger book containing the account of Arcos Shoes and the receipt for the amount of Rs.1,27,000 which they had been given by the U . B . L. towards their claim against the bank for making payments upon allegedly forged cheques. The F.I.A. Inspector has produced the FIR recorded by him in the Register maintained under section 154, Cr.P.C.

8. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence led by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the appellant had after receiving eight cheques (Exs.2/C‑1 to 2/C‑8) of the actual amount presented them to the bank in a tampered condition showing inflated amounts as alleged and received the inflated amounts from the bank and misappropriated the same and convicted the appellant on the basis of the said finding and sentenced him as above while acquitted the accused Mohammad Yasin.

9. We have heard the appellant's counsel Mr. M. Ilyas Khan and State Counsel Mr. Murtaza Hussain and have gone through the R & P of the case.

10. We find that the learned trial Court has based its finding on the statement of complainant Javed Aziz Khan, the Manager of Bunder Road Branch of U . B . L . which was corroborated by the statements of Mahmood Noorani and Mahboob Durrani who has delivered these cheques to the accused personally and obtained his signatures on the counterfoil in token of having received the same except for one cheque. The evidence of these two witnesses is further supported by that of cashier Mohammad Rafique. The oral evidence of these three witnesses is corroborated by the cheques Exs.2/C‑1 to 2/C‑8. The counterfoils of these cheques Exs.4/A‑1 to 4/A‑5. The cheques as well as the counterfoils bear the signature of appellant Abdul Rashid. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence of these witnesses and the documents referred to above at length in question No. 1 of its judgment and the same need not be reproduced, We find ourselves in agreement with the finding of the learned trial Court that appellant Abdul Rashid had obtained an excess amount of Rs.1,50,000 through alterations and interpolations made in the 6 cheques which are flagrant and clearly visible. He also dishonestly acquired from Nitco Information and encashed 2 cheques. We also agree that the authenticating signatures on Exs.2/C‑1, 2/C‑2 and 2/C‑5 at the alterations and interpolations are of such nature that they should have been scored off and fresh entries duly authenticated should have been made. These are quite distinct from the main signatures on these cheques, and appear to have been made after the cheques were delivered the applicant.

11. The above oral and documentary evidence further finds support from the extra‑judicial confession of the appellant which he made in a detailed application addressed to the Manager of the Bank making a clean breast of himself. We are of the clear view that the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance on this extra -judicial confession which is in the handwriting of the appellant and is signed by him. This extra‑judicial confession gives a ring of truth and the circumstances in which it has been given inspires confidence in a judicial mind. The learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for placing implicit reliance on the extra‑judicial confession. We have no hesitation in accepting the said extra‑judicial confession and agreeing with the learned trial Court in placing implicit reliance thereon. The above documentary evidence is further supported b5, the entries of the ledgers and books of accounts of the bank and Nicto Information produced in this case, which have been maintained in ordinary course of business and have not been challenged.

12. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court. However, we feel that the imposition of maximum substantive sentence provided in the above section was not called for and there is scope for reducing the same, in view of authoritative judicial pronouncements as the appellant has already been sufficiently penalised by imposition of heavy fine and is still liable to be prosecuted on the charges on major counts as ordered by the learned trial Court. These are the reasons for our short order passed on 1‑6‑1987, maintaining the conviction and reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment by one year and with the above modification of sentence, dismissing the appeal.

13. S.A. / A‑199/ K Appeal dismissed.