STATE Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL BASRA

On 28th of May, 1976, a complaint EXh.P.1 was made by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Officer U.B.L., Tollinton Market Branch, 170‑Anarkali, Lahore to the S. H. O., P. S. Old Anarkali, Lahore for registration of a case. The relevant portions of the said complaint run as below:‑----

"On 18‑5‑1976 telephonic transfer (commonly known as T.T.) purporting to have originated from Muhammad Jameei Bullar, officer of U.B.L. Phool Chauk, Juna Market Branch, Karachi was received by me as second officer of U. B. L. , Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore. The person representating himself as Muhammad Jameel Bullar, advised me to pay Rs.2,67,000 to one Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi of Lahore who according to him was a valued client of the bank at Karachi and that his identity was fully established and on enquiry made by me as to the identity of the person calling on the telephone, the said person gave me his attorney No.1204 which on verification from the record of the bank was found to be correct. The said Aslam Sheerazi was also physically present in the Tollinton Market Branch of UBL at that time and he too spoke to Muhammad Jameel Bullar on phone and in view of the matter, T.T. Receipt for Rs.2,67,000 was handed over to said Aslam Sheerazi on the same day.

The said T.T. receipt came up for clearing on 19‑5‑1976, through M.C.B., Anarkali Branch, Lahore and was actually cleared at 3‑00 p.m. on the same day.

That as Toilinton Market Branch had not received any telegraphic confirmation of the T.T. issued from Karachi Branch I and my Manager S.A. Birlas spoke to the Karachi Branch on 19‑5‑1976 and it then transpired that no T. T. message was conveyed by that Branch on telephone on 18‑5‑1976.

I and Mr. S. A. Birlas, Manager, U. B. L. Tollinton Market Branch, can identify the person who represented himself as Aslam Sheerazi. The said person had in fact visited the Tollinton Market Branch even prior to 18‑5‑1976 and had made inquiries about receipt of T.T. from Karachi. In this background I and Mr. S.A. Birlas thought in good faith that the telephonic message received on 18‑5‑1976 was genuine and said person was in fact payee of T. T. receipt in dispute. It may also be stated that T. T. Code commonly known as test No. is a secret information and is only known to officers entrusted to deal with it during the tenure of their posting at a particular branch. We presume that some officials of Karachi Branch of U. B. L. had revealed this information and in this connection we gravely suspect Muhammad Iqbal Basra son of Abdul Shakoor resident of 2‑Babar House, Hussain D.Silva, Nishter Road, Karachi, an ex‑employee of the Karachi branch had in fact impersonated himself as Aslam Sheerazi and in active connivance and collaboration with other persons fraudulently cheated U.B.L. of a sum of Rs.2.67,000. The said Aslam Sheerazi and other person directly and indirectly concerned with transaction in dispute have committed acts of forgery misrepresentation, impersonation, criminal breach of trust and as such are guilty of offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 109, P.P.C."

2. On the basis of this complaint EXh.P.l, F.I.R. No.433, dated 28‑5‑1976, EXh.P.l/2 was registered at P.S. Old Anarkali for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Investigation of this case was entrusted to P.W.12 Bashir Ahmad, A.S.I. of P.S. Old Anarkali, Lahore. On 29‑5‑1976, he took into possession documents from U. B. L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore. On the same day at about 15‑00 hours, Muhammad Yar Khan Inspector, C.I.A., Karachi arrested the accused Muhammad Iqbal Basra when he had just returned to his house in car No. KCC 8450 Toyota Corolla Model 1976. The said car was taken into possession and from its dash board currency notes worth Rs.31,575 and number of documents including a receipt of purchase of said car, two diaries of the accused, some pages of which and six papers on which, different test numbers were written, 9 blank cheques of different banks, blank forms/papers with stamp 589 chak No.54/2‑L. Depalpur Chauk, Okara Branch affixed therein were recovered in the presence of retired Capt. Abdul Haq, Security Officer, Head Office, U.B.L. and Ashfaq Hussain which were taken into possession by the police. On 1‑6‑1976, the accused led the Investigating Officer Bashir Ahmad A.S.I. of P.S. Old Anarkali, Lahore and Capt. Addul Haq and Ashfaq Hussain to his house, took out a key from underneath the locked steel almirah and opened the said almirah with the same, took out a sum of Rs.60,000 in the shape of 12 bundles consisting of 100 notes of fifty rupees denomination each and two papers on which test numbers of the bank were written. These were taken into possession by the police. On 5‑6‑1976, S. Naeem Tahir, Manager, M.C.B., Anarkali Branch, Lahore produced documents before Bashir Ahmad A.S.I. which were taken into possession by the said Police Officer. Accused, Muhammad Iqbal Basra was challaned on the basis of the above and some other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. The relevant portion of the police report under section 173, Cr.P.C. runs as below:‑--

"On investigation, the crime of withdrawal of a sum of Rs.2,67,000 through fictitious telephonic transfer (T. T.) from the bank was proved against Muhammad Iqbal Basra, who on his pointing out got the sum of Rs.91,775 in cash of which he had cheated the bank and a car which he had purchased for a sum of Rs.80,000 out of the defrauded sum recovered. The accused also pointed out of the defrauded sum, he had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000 as guardian of his fictitious daughter, Robina Aslam and a sum of Rs.2,000 in M.C.B. New Anarakali Branch, Lahore. Sufficient proof fit for challaning the accused has been discovered. "

4. The trial started in the Court of a Magistrate Section 30, Lahore. Charge against the accused was framed for offences under section 419, 420, 468, 467 and 147, P.P.C. on 12‑3‑1977. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. Statements of 12 witnesses were recorded in the Court of learned Magistrate. Three prosecution witnesses Aftab Ahmad Khan handwriting expert, Muhammad Ajmal, officer of M.C.B. and Muhammad Yar Khan, Inspector C.I.A., Karachi had yet to appear in evidence when the learned Magistrate closed the prosecution evidence on 18‑1‑1983. Appeal and an application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. before the High Court against the said order failed. The statement of the accused under section 342, Cr. P. C. was recorded in that Court on 16‑7‑1983. Accused stated that he would produce defence evidence. On 27‑8‑1983 the learned Magistrate closed his defence evidence on account of non‑production by him of defence witnesses on number of dates and fixed the case for arguments. The case continued to remain pending in that Court for one reason or the other. In the meantime, on account of promulgation of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, the case was sent to this Court for disposal. In this Court, on discovery during the course of arguments that some of the incriminating evidence had not been put to the accused to seek his explanation, supplementary statement of the accused was recorded on 28‑1‑1986. The accused claimed in it an opportunity to produce defence evidence in relation to incriminating evidence put to him on that day on 10‑2‑1986, he made a statement that he did not want to produce any defence witness. During the course of hearing of arguments for second time, it transpired that there was further incriminating material on record which had not been put to the accused. Accordingly, another supplementary statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27‑5‑1986. The accused stated in it that he would produce defence evidence in relation to incriminating evidence put to him on that day. However, he did not bring any defence witness on 16‑6‑1986 the date fixed for production by him of defence evidence and instead filed application CrI. M.157 of 1986 for summoning of three witnesses. That application of the accused was dismissed on 24‑6‑1986 and his defence evidence was closed on that day.

6. Evidence adduced in this case can be classified in the following distinct categories:‑

(i) Evidence in respect of production documents Exh.P. U. /1 to Exh.P.J./3 by the said officer of U. B. L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore before the Investigating Officer Bashir Ahmad, A.S.I. of P.S. Old Anarkali, Lahore and the factum of said documents having been taken into possession by the said Investigating Officer. This evidence is furnished by P.W.2 M. Aslam Chaudhry and P.W.12 Bashir Ahmad A.S.I.

(ii) Evidence in respect of production by S. Naeem Tahir, Manager, M.C.B., Anarkali Branch, Lahore on 5‑7;1976 of documents and the factum of taking into possession by the police of said documents by virtue of memo Exh.P.H. This evidence has been furnished by P.W.1 S. Naeem Tahir and P.W.12 Bashir Ahmad, A. S. I.

(iii) Evidence in respect of occurrence as it happened in U . B. L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore on 18th/19th of May, 1976. That evidence has been furnished by P. K'.2 M. Aslam Chaudhry, Officer Grade II of the said branch and P. W. 3 Saif‑ud‑Din Birlas, Manager of the said Branch. Connected with their evidence is the evidence of P. W.5 Syed Bakhtawar‑ud‑Din, Manager of Phool Chawk Juna Market Branch, Karachi.

(iv) Evidence in respect of the occurrence as it happened in M. C . B. Anarkali Branch on 18th/19th of May, 1976. This evidence furnished by P.W.4 Muhammad Asif, Manager of the M.C.B. Anarkali Branch and P. W.9 Mirza Fayaz Beg, Accountant of the said Branch.

(v) Evidence in respect of arrest of the accused and recoveries made at Karachi on 29‑5‑1976 by virtue of memo. Exh.P.C. That evidence has been furnished by P. W.6 Retd. Capt. Abdul Haq P.W.7 Ashfaq Hussain.

(vi) Evidence in respect of recovery on 1‑5‑1976 of a sum of Rs.60,000 Exh.P.23 and two papers Exh.P.24/1 and Exh.P.2/2 from the steel almirah lying in a room of the house of the accused at Karachi at the instance of the accused. This evidence is furnished by P. W.6 Capt. Abdul Haq and P. W.7 Ashfaq Hussain. (vii) Evidence of previous conduct of accused.

(viii) Incriminating evidence of purchase of car by the accused immediately after the occurrence.

7. I now proceed to discuss the evidence in the case in the light of the above categories.

Seizure of Documents from U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore:

8. P. W.2 M. Aslam Chaudhry, Second Officer U. B. L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore, stated in his statement that he had produced the test report (paper consisting of his writing of a message dated 18‑5‑1976 directing U. B. L. Tollinton Market Branch to pay Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi a sum of Rs.2,67,000 received by him and his endorsement and that of the Manager on the said paper that test applied by them had agreed) as Exh.P.J. /1, debit voucher (whereby a sum of Rs.2,67,000 was debited to Head Office Account relating to U. B. L. Phool Chowk Branch, Karachi for transferring the said sum to U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch for the purpose of making a T.T.R. in the said sum) as Exh.P.J./2 and T.T.R. as EXh.P.J./3 to the police which had been taken by the police into possession by virtue of memo. Exh. P. K. There was no cross‑examination on the question of presentation by him of the said documents. The other witness in respect of production of said three documents is Bashir Ahmad, A.S.I. P.W.12. He stated that during investigation, he had taken into possession the record of the U . B. L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore consisting of documents Exh.P.J. /1 to Exh.P.J. /3 by virtue of memo. Exh.P. K. There was no cross‑examination on this witness as regards presentation of said documents to or factum of seizure by him of the said documents. In the circumstance, production of said documents and their having been taken into possession by the said‑police officer from the proper custody is established.

Evidence of taking into possession of. documents from M.C.B. Old Anarkali Lahore:

9. P. W.1 Syed Nasim Tahir deposed that he had during investigation produced before the Investigating Officer forged account opening form of Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi Exh.P.A. fixed deposit account opening form as Exh.P.B. and specimen signature cards of said Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi as Exh.P.C./1 and Exh.P.C./2, pay in slip receipts as Exh.P.D./1 and Exh.P.D./2, two cheques Exh.P.E./1 and Exh.P.E./2, statement of account Exh.P.F.. Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) as Exh.P.G. According to this witness, these documents were taken into possession by the police by virtue of memo. Exh.P.H. which bears his signature. There was absolutely no cross‑examination on this witness. The other witness in respect of taking into possession of these documents is P.W.12 Bashir Ahmad A.S.I., P.S. Old Anarkali. He also stated in his statement that he had taken into possession the said documents and, therefore, the production of these documents by P.W.1 before the police and taking of these documents into possession by the I.O. P. W.12 Bashir Ahmad, A.S.I., has also been proved on the record.

Evidence in Respect of Occurrence as it happened in U . B. L. Tollinton Market Branch:

10. P.W.2 Ch. Muhammad Aslam and P.W.3 Safi‑ud‑Din Birlas have fully proved the occurrence as it took place on 18‑5‑1976 and 19‑5‑1976 in the U.B.L. Tollinton Marker Branch. P.W.2, Muhammad Aslam stated that he was working as Second Officer in U.B.L. He received a telephone call from a person who claimed to be Muhammad Jameel Bullar, an officer of U.B.L. Phool Chauk Branch, Karachi, bearing attorney No. 1204 to the‑ effect that Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi was account holder in his branch and full identity of the said person was available with him and that he (the witness) should pay Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi a sum of Rs.2,67,000. He also stated that the Code No. in respect of this T.T. message which Muhammad Jameel Bullar had given him was 1626, on the basis of which, he (remitter of the message) had told him the total (of figures of code No.) to be 15. According to him following was the message which he received and noted on document Exh.P.J./1:

"Code No. 1626/15 T.T.‑I, dated 18‑5‑1976 Advise and pay Mr. M. Aslam Sheerazi Rs.2,67,000".

He further stated that Muhammad Jameel had asked him to hold the telephone and see whether test code given by him was correct. The said witness stated that he thereafter checked attorney No.1204 of Muhammad Jameel, from the record of the bank which turned out to be correct and then applied test code, as a result of which his test and that of the Manager agreed. This statement of this witness is fully corroborated by document Exh.P.J. /1 on which this witness wrote the said message stating therein that it had been received from Mr. Jameel P. A. No. 1204 of Phool Chauk Branch, Karachi. The said document also shows that test of both, the second officer and the Manager had agreed as it bears signatures of both under the stamp "Test agreed" . The said witness further stated that in the meantime, accused Muhammad Iqbal Basra whom he fully recognized had reached the branch and had informed him (the witness) that his name was Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi. He also stated that the accused had talked on telephone to the person on the other end who claimed to be Muhammad Jameel Bullar. P.W.2 Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry further stated that he had accordingly made T. T. R. for Rs.2,67,000 and had given the same to the accused. This part of statement of this witness is corroborated by Exh.P.J. /2, debit voucher whereby the sum of Rs.2,67,000 was debited to Head Office Account relating to Phool Chauk Branch, Karachi in order to make T. T. R. for said sum in the name of Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi at the instance of the said originating branch. He also deposed that on 19‑5‑1976 the T. T.R. had been received in his branch from M. C. B. Old Anarkali Branch for clearing which was cleared. This part of statement of this witness is corroborated by T. T.R. PJ/3 which after being cleared in connection with collection of the sum of Rs.2,67,000 by M.C.B. was retained in U.B.L Tollinton Market Branch. P.W.2 M. Aslam Chaudhry further stated that Muhammad Jameel Bullar had informed them that confirmation of the T. T. advice sent by him to this branch shall be sent through P.I. A. but when till 4 p. m. on 19‑5‑1976 confirmation had not been received he had contacted the Manager of Phool Chauk Branch, Karachi and had required from him why confirmation of the said T. T. R had not been sent, on which the said Manager had denied that he had sent any T.T. message. In cross‑examination, this witness had stated that since the remitter of the T.T. message from Karachi had talked to the accused on telephone, there was no necessity of seeking identification of the accused (who had represented himself to be Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi). He further stated that prior to 18‑5‑1976, accused had come to him in the branch twice or thrice. This statement of this witness was fully supported by P. W. 3, Safi‑ud‑Din Birlas who was Manager of the Branch. There was no cross‑examination on both the said witnesses showing that the story told by them was false. That part of the statement of the said two witnesses, therefore, stands unshattered.

11. Connected with the statement of the said two P. Ws. , is the evidence of P.W. 5 Syed Bakhtawar‑ud‑Din who was then Manager U . B. L Phool Chauk Branch, Karachi. He stated that in May, 1976, when he was Manager U.B.L Phool Chauk Branch, Karachi he was asked on telephone why confirmation of the T.T. message for payment of a sum of Rs.2,67,000 to Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi had not been sent by Phool Chauk Branch and he had after ascertaining from the branch informed the Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore that no such T.T. had been sent. He further deposed that the real facts are that a fictitious T.T. was sent to the U.B.L Tollinton Market Branch and that Muhammad Iqbal Basra accused, present in the Court whom he fully recognized was the person who had got this T. T sent fraudulently. He explained that the said accused had been working as an officer in Phool Chauk Branch and knew procedure of the bank and that he had performed this fraudulent job through fictitious person named Muhammad Jameel Bullar as no officer bearing the name of Muhammad Jameel Bullar was posted in Phool Chauk Branch, Karachi on 18‑5‑1976. Thus, this witness fully supported P.W. 2 M. Aslam Chaudhry and P.W 3 Saif‑ud‑Din Birlas of U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore.

12. The factum of attorney No.1204 of Muhammad Jameel Bullar, having been found to be correct showing Muhammad Jameel Bullar, alleged remitter of T . T . message to be an officer of U . B . L (though not necessarily of Phool Chauk Branch) and test code of T. T. message having agreed were sufficient to deceive P.W. 2 M. Aslam Chaudhry Second Officer and P.W. 3 Saif‑ud‑Din Birlas, Manager of United Bank Limited, Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore that the said T.T. message was a genuine one, and thus induce them to make a T . T . R for the said sum and deliver it to the accused and subsequently clear the said T.T.R in collection. It was not necessary for the Tollinton Market Branch of U.B.L. to get the said T.T. message confirmed from the Phool Chauk Branch before either making the T.T.R on its basis or allowing the collection on the said T.T.R. by another bank because P.W.2 Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry had stated that when the T.T message is received on telephone, it is confirmed on the basis of the Code, and payment is made on T . T . R. and it is not necessary that there should be a written advice and another banker, P.W. 5, Syed Bakhtawar‑ud‑Din had stated that confirmation of T . T . message is not an absolute necessity though as a good banker it should be got confirmed. Apart from that appearance of the accused before M. Aslam Chaudhry twice or thrice before 18‑5‑1976 and his enquiring as to whether any T.T. from Karachi in his name as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi had been received and his appearance again' on 18‑5‑1976 when the T.T. message was being received and his representation that he was Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and his conversation on telephone with remitter of telephone message from Karachi were again sufficient to deceive P.W. 2 M. Aslam Chaudhry and P.W. 3 Saif‑ud‑Din Birlas into believing that the said representation of the accused that he was. Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi was correct.

13. Learned counsel for the accused has, raised the question of identity of the accused and has submitted that it is not established on record that it was the accused who had appeared earlier and on 18‑5‑1976 before P. W. 2 M. Adam Chaudhry and represented himself to be Muhammad Asiam Sheerazi. This contention of the learned counsel for the accused appears to be negated by evidence on 'record. P.W. 2 M. Aslam Chaudhry stated in his statement that the man who had come to him on 18‑5‑1976, represented himself to be Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and had talked to Muhammad Jameel Bullar alleged remitter of T.T. message from Karachi and had got the T.T.R. made in his favour and had caused it to be issued to him was the accused present in the Court whom he fully recognized. He also stated that when the accused after his arrest from Karachi was brought to police station Old Anarkali, Lahore, he, immediately on seeing him had stated that he was the same person as had deceitfully got the T.T.R. for a sum of Rs.2,67,000 made in his favour. He also stated in his cross‑examination that prior to 18‑5‑1976, the accused had come to him twice or thrice. He stated that he did not remember the clothes worn by the accused on 18‑5‑1976 but the accused was not keeping beard at that time but now he had grown beard. He admitted that when on 18‑5‑1976, the accused had come to him he did not know his real name Muhammad Iqbal Basra. When P.W. 3 Saif‑ud‑Din Birlas was asked in cross‑examination to identify before the Court accused Muhammad Iqbal Basra out of 617 persons who were put alongwith him in the Court room of the learned Magistrate, the said witness had correctly picked out and identified accused Muhammad Iqbal Basra as the person who had appeared in his branch on 18‑5‑1976. He stated that on 18‑5‑1976 the accused was wearing Shalwar and shirt but had no beard at that time. He further stated that the accused had himself come in the bank and had stated that he was Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi. The said witness further stated that it was absolutely true statement that accused Muhammad IqbaI Basra was the person who had, on that day, come to the bank and had represented himself to be Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and that it was incorrect that he had identified him only by guess work and that he fully recognised him and whatever he had stated, he had stated correctly in accordance with the tenants of his faith. Thus, there appears to be overwhelming evidence to show that it was the accused who had appeared in the bank on 18‑5‑1976 and had represented himself to be Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and had on the basis of a fake and bogus telephone call consisting of a T.T. message, got a false T.T.R. deceitfully made in his name.

14. Learned counsel for the accused has, however, raised a question that latest identification parade of the accused should have been held as he was not known to the two witnesses earlier when he appeared on 18‑5‑1976 before them in the U.B.L., Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore and without that, identification of the accused by the said P.Ws is of no consequence. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention of learned counsel for the accused. It has been laid down in Ismail v. The State 1974 S C M R 175 that identification parade is necessary only when the accused is seen for the first time but when the accused is known already by the face although not by name, then no test identification parade of the said person is necessary. The accused had not only been seen on that day when he got the T. T. R. made from U . B. L. Tollinton Market Branch where he stayed for the said purpose for some length of time but twice or thrice earlier also as he had then come to the said branch to enquire if any T.T. in his favour had been received as deposed to by both the said P.Ws. He was, therefore, obviously known to the members of the staff of U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch by face although the correct name was not known to anyone. It is true that he got known to them as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi but that was the name given by the accused himself or by the remitter of bogus T.T. message to them and the officers of the bank did not know for certainty that he was Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi or some person bearing any other name. In these circumstances, I do not think that it was necessary that test identification parade should have been held to find out whether he could be identified by the said P. Ws. In my opinion in the circumstances of the present case, identification of the accused by the two P. Ws. in the police station, when he was brought from Karachi to Lahore and their identification of the accused in the Court is sufficient. I, therefore, hold that it was the accused who had falsely represented himself to be Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi before P. W. 2 M. Aslam Chaudhry and P. W. 3 Saif‑ud‑Din Birlas when the bogus T.T. message was received which required the Tollinton Market Branch to pay a sum of Rs.2,67,000 to Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi.

The occurrence as it happened in M.C.B. Anarkall Branch, Lahore:

15. Two P. Ws. who deposed in respect of the occurrence at M. C. B. Anarkali Branch, Lahore are P. W. 4 Sh. Muhammad Asif who was Manager and P.W. 9, Mirza Fayaz Beg who was Accountant, in M.C.B. Anarkali Branch on 18‑5‑1976. From their statements read in the light of documents taken into possession from M. C. B. Anarkali Branch, Lahore, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that on the basis of Account Opening Form Exh. P. A. , filled in and signed by him and specimen signature card, Exh. P. C. /1 executed by him, the accused had, with initial deposit of Rs.500 as shown by deposit slip Exh. D/1 for the said sum, opened on 18‑5‑1976 Account No. 2051 in false and fictitious name of Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi in M.C.B. Anarkali Branch, Lahore and as shown by deposit slip, dated 18‑5‑1976 Exh. P. D. /1, deposited in his said account T. T. R. Exh. P.J. /3 (also marked as Exh. P. M. in the statement of P. W. 4 Mirza Fayaz Beg) in his said account for collection of a sum of Rs.2,67,000 from U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore, through State Bank of Pakistan and on the next day, on the basis of Account Opening Form, Exh. P.B. for opening a fixed deposit account in the name of his fictitious minor daughter Robins Aslam through him as her guardian and specimen signature card bearing his two specimen signatures as Muhammad Aslam executed by him, opened fixed deposit account in the name of said Robina Aslam. It is further established that he drew a cheque Exh. P.E. for a sum of Rs.25,000 and on the basis of the said sum of Rs.25,000 which as endorsed on the back of the said cheque, was paid to him at about 10.02 a.m., he got fixed deposit receipt, dated 19‑5‑1976, Exh. P. G. for a sum of Rs.25,000 issued in the name of his fictitious minor daughter Robina Aslam with himself as the operator of other account as her guardian. On the same day, he issued cheque, Exh. P.E./1 for a sum of Rs.2,40,000 in favour of self or bearer and as shown by the endorsement on the back of the said cheque was paid the sum of Rs.2,40,000 at about 10.40 a. m. He took away this sum and it was thereafter that it had come to be known that the T.T. was false.

16. Both the said P. Ws. had identified accused Muhammad Iqbal Basra, present in the Court, as the person who had represented before them to be Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and had done all deposed to by them and finally received a sum of Rs.2,40,000 from their branch. There was absolutely no cross‑examination on the said witnesses in that regard.

The accused must, therefore, be deemed to have accepted the statement of the said two P.Ws. in that regard.

17. Learned counsel for the accused has attacked the evidence of these two P.Ws on the ground that they conceded in their evidence that for opening an account, introduction is necessary but there was no introduction in the account opening forms of accounts opened by the accused. It may, however, be noted that P.W. 4 Sh. Muhammad Asif who was the then Manager of the Branch had explained that the accused had kept with him in M.C.B. Anarkali a sum of Rs.25,000 in fixed deposit and for that reasons he had opened the account. This account of the accused was opened on 18‑5‑1976 while a sum of Rs.25,000 was kept in fixed deposit in M. C . B. Anarkali Branch on 19‑5‑1976. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that accused had informed the said P.W. that he should open the account without any introduction as he is going to keep a sum of Rs.25,000 in the branch as fixed deposit. The Managers are always interested in getting more deposits for their bank and Muhammad Asif must have counted on the fact that the accused was going to keep so heavy a sum of Rs.25, 000 as a fixed deposit in his said branch. He must have thought that there was no possibility of any chicanery on the part of the accused as he would not part with so huge a sum of Rs.25, 000 if he was not a genuine person and allowed him, therefore, to open the account without any introduction. Drawing of such an inference by the Court as is' consistent with probability of the case is permissible as laid down in Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others P L D 1962 S C 502. It appears that the said witness was deceived by the said fraudulent representation of the accused and had opened account of the accused in the false name of Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi without any introduction. The circumstance that the account had been opened without introduction does not prove the statements of the said two P. Ws to be false but establishes that Muhammad Asif Manager had been deceived by the ruse played by the accused.

18. Learned counsel for the accused has next contended that P.W. 4 Sh. Muhammad Asif had stated that he made the payment of the T.T.R. on 19‑5‑1976 at about 10‑30 or 11‑00 a.m. from M.C.B. Old Anarkali Branch although according to P. W. 9 Mirza Fayaz Beg, the T. T. R. had been received after clearance from U. B. L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore at about 2 or 2‑30 p. m. and as such evidence of the P.Ws. could not be believed. It is, however, well‑known that T.T.R. is issued on the basis of prior receipt by issuing bank of the‑ sum of the said T. T. at the originating branch of the T. T. It is like ready cash which is always made available to the branch from which T.T.R. is received for clearance. The Manager of the M. C. B. could be justifiably confident that the said sum of Rs.2,67,000 would, without any doubt, be received from issuing branch and he could therefore, make prior payment before the clearance of the T.T.R. Accordingly, payment by the M. C . B. at that time of the said sum of the T. T. R. on the basis of two cheques issued by the accused also does not prove th4 evidence of these witnesses to be false.

19. Learned counsel for the accused has next submitted that P. W. 9, Mirza Fayaz Beg had conceded that his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. had not been recorded by the police and, therefore, statement of this witness cannot be read in evidence as the accused could not be given copy of police statement of the said witness as required by subsection (1) of section 241‑A, Cr.P.C. and clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 265‑C, Cr.P.C. nor any opportunity could be afforded to the accused to confront the said witness with his previous statement for any discrepancy. It is difficult for me to accept this contention too. In the words used in The State v. Jagdish Pandey A I R 1958 Cal. 311, it was not the intention of the legislature to shut out relevant evidence by enacting subsection (1) of section 241‑A and clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 265‑C, Cr.P.C. The purpose might have been to benefit the accused by giving him in advance copies of statements referred to in them but that could not possibly have the effect of preventing the prosecution from calling other competent evidence at the trial. Furthermore, language of section 244(1) and section 265‑F(1), Cr. P. C. which places a duty on the Court to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution has been kept purposely wide so as to enable the prosecutor to produce all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and if we were to read "all such evidence" in the section as meaning only such evidence as relates to these persons who have been examined by the police, it wily be reading into the section something which is not there. Sections 241‑A and 265‑C do not control sections 244 and 265‑F, Cr.P.C. It could not have been the intention of the legislature to limit the operation of section 244(1) and section 265‑F(1), Cr.P.C. by compelling the prosecution to confine itself to the evidence only of these person whose statement have been recorded by the police. The mere fact that the police did not consider some witness material during investigation/ collection of evidence will not preclude the prosecutor from asking for or the Court from calling such witnesses at the trial. I may also point out that under subsection (1) of section 245 and subsection (2) of section 265‑F with the permission of the Court, witnesses not cited in the challan but who are otherwise acquainted with the facts of the prosecution case can be examined as prosecution witnesses. In most of the cases, such witnesses are not those who have previously been examined by the police. In my opinion, therefore, it does not appear to be the policy of law that a person who has not appeared and made statement before the police should not be allowed to appear in the Court as a prosecution witness or that his statement in the Court should not be read in evidence. I, therefore, reject the contention of learned counsel for the accused and hold that the statement of P. W. 9 Mirza Fayaz Beg is a v81id piece of evidence which can be taken into consideration by the Court notwithstanding that his statement was not recorded by the police.

20. Thus, none of the points raised by learned counsel for the accused detract from the correctness of my finding, based on the statements of the said P.Ws, that accused Muhammad Iqbal Basra had impersonated as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi, prepared and signed two account opening forms and two cheques in his fictitious name as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and out of the proceeds to said T. T. R. which he deposited there, kept a sum of Ks.25,000 in fixed deposit in the name of his false and fictitious daughter Robina Aslam on the basis of one cheque and had got encashed the other cheque and fraudulently obtained a sum of Rs.2,40,000 from M.C.B. Anarkali Branch, Lahore.

Recoveries made at Karachi on 29‑5‑1976:

P.W. 6 Capt. (Retd.) Abdul Haq stated that he was Security Officer of U.B.L. Head Office, Karachi and an intimation had been received in Head Office at Karachi that on the basis of a fictitious T.T. message purporting to have originated from U.B.L. Phool Chauk Branch, Lahore payment of a sum of Rs.2,67,000 has been made from a branch of U . B. L. at Lahore and on 29‑5‑1976 he came to know that accused Muhammad Iqbal Basra present in the Court had committed the said fraud and on that he had placed a security watch on his house and at about 3 o'clock he got an intimation on telephone that Muhammad Iqbal Basra had come on Toyota Car KCC‑8450 and that on that he had informed Muhammad Yar Inspector, C.I.A., Karachi on telephone and he alongwith Muhammad Yar Inspector Police, C.I.A. and other members of the police party had gone to the house of the accused and had waited only for 10 mintues there when accused arrived in the car. The accused was arrested by the police who took into possession the car alongwith its key, registration book, insurance papers. transfer letter, a cheque book of the H. B. L. nine cheques and spare wheel of the car, two diaries; one of the Banking Institute and the other 'Friends Diary', one stamp paper worth Rs.4 some photographs and a bank transfer letter. He further said that these things, namely, two keys, Exh. P.1, spare wheel P.2, Radio‑tape‑Recorder, Exh. P.3, transfer letter, Exh. P.4; blank transfer letter Exh. P. 5, and other documents Exhs. P.6 to P. 21 alongwith a sum of Rs.31,500 Exh. P.22, were taken into possession by the police and memo. Exh. P. K. was prepared which was signed by him and a fruit/vegetable seller.

21. The memo. Exh. P. K. , heading of which is a memo. of taking into possession and arrest of the accused and is marked as Exh. P. K . is on the record of this case. Memo. dated 29‑5‑1976 through which documents were taken into possession by the police from U . B. L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore is also marked as Exh. P.R. by the Magistrate. But the memo. under discussion which is also, dated 29‑5‑1976 is a memo. of arrest of the accused and of taking into possession of car, its accessories and documents at Karachi and is clearly distinguishable. However, marking Exh. P. K. by the Magistrate which is of 28‑10‑1980 is not signed by the learned Magistrate. In the body of the said memo. the sum of Rs.31,575 shown therein to have been recovered from the dash‑board of the car is marked in red ink as Exh. P‑22. On the same page against one 'insurance certificate' shown at Sr. No. 5 of the list of documents/articles taken into possession Exh. P.5 is marked in red ink. Similarly, on the reverse side of this memo. on right side of description of articles/ documents taken into possession, Exhs. P.8 to P.2' marked in red ink, for articles/ documents enumerated from serial No. 8 to serial No. 21 in the said memo. The marking of exhibits on remaining articles/ documents on which obverse page of memo. and portions of descriptions of documents /articles on its reverse page are not available due to this memo. being partly torn and partly eated up on account of constant wear and tear due to case having remained pending in the Courts of Magistrates for a number of years. In order to find out as to what were the articles/ documents at serial Nos. 6 and 7 on the first page of this memo. I called for the police file hoping that it might be containing a carbon copy of this memo, which, however, was found torn from other side, resulting in disappearance of serial number of articles/ documents on the reverse page. By putting the two together, it could be found as to what were the documents on which learned Magistrate had put Exhs. P.1 to P.4, P.6 and P.7. I have put the said photo copy of the carbon copy of the original memo. which is available on the police file just alongwith the original memo. in the challan file. After comparison of two pages and after taking into consideration of the order in which Exhs. have been marked by learned Magistrate on the memo. in red ink it appears that the two keys had been marked as Exh. P.1; one spare wheel as Exh. P.2; one radio‑tape recorder installed in the car as Exh. P.3, registration book of Car No. KCC‑8450, engine No. 3K6823920 which is registered in the name of Rahmatullah Siddiqi son of Aleem Ullah Siddiqi as Exh. P.4 and as already stated one insurance certificate as Exh. P.5, receipt in respect of the sale of said car as Exh. P.6 and a blank transfer letter Exh. P.

7. On reverse side of the original memo. Exh. P. K . five papers in respect of (the import of) the said car (in the name of Rehan Uilah Siddiqi) are marked in the Court of learned Magistrate as Exh. P.8, an official receipt in respect of car in which the name of the purchaser and the amount is not entered but the signature of Rehan Ullah Siddiqi is there as Exh. P. 9, stamp papers in the name of Rehan Ullah Siddiqi as Exh. P.10, Friends Diary of 1974, on the second page of which Muhammad Iqbal Basra, 2‑Babar House, Hussain D.Silva Garden is written and on the page relating to 4th, 5th March, 1974 and on the back side of page relating to 31st May, 1974, and on the page relating to 1st June, 1974 different test number are written as Exh. P. 11, Diary of Institute of Bankers in Pakistan, on page 3 of which Iqbal S. Basra, 2‑Babar House Hussain D. Silva Garden is written Exh. P. 12, six papers on which different test numbers are written as Exh. P.13 nine blank cheques of different banks marked as Exh. P.14; one cheque of U.B.L. Phool Chauk Branch, Karachi, bearing No. CCM‑695731 as P. 15, four blank papers on which there is stamp of 689/Chak No. 54/2‑L, Depalpur Chauk as Exh. P.16, one cheque book of H.B.L. A/c No. 36701 1 in the name of Abdul Shakoor in which 4 cheques are still unused as Exh. P.17, photostat of passport of Rehan Ullah Siddiqi (three leaves) as Exh. P. 18, baggage receipt as Exh. P.19, import permit as Exh. P.20. , unaccompanied baggage declaration as Exh. P.

21. There is no cross‑examination on this witness in respect of actual documents /articles recovered from the dashboard of the car in possession of the accused at that time. The statement of this P.W. read alongwith the description of articles /documents given in the memo. Exh. P.K. of arrest of accused, recovery of documents and marking of exhibits in red ink on right side of detail of each article/ document in the said memo. and marking in red ink as Exh. P.22 on the top of sum of Rs.31,575 in the body of the memo. prove that all the articles and documents so specked including the car and the said sum were recovered from the custody of the accused on 29‑5‑1976 at Karachi.

22. It is, however, notable that notwithstanding the fact that against each one of the articles listed in the memo. an exhibit has been or is to be assumed to have been marked in red ink and the sum of Rs.31,575 stated in this memo. has also been marked as Exh. P. 22, marking of memo. as P. K . is not signed by the Magistrate before whom the case was pending then and the said documents have also not been marked with number of exhibits shown on the said memo. nor the said documents bear the signature of the Magistrate. Learned counsel for the accused has, on that account submitted that these documents cannot be read in evidence.

23. There appears 'to be no substance in this contention too. Learned counsel for the accused has not been able to show me any provision in the Cr.P.C. or elsewhere laying down as a mandatory duty of the criminal Court to mark the exhibits on the documents admitted in evidence in the case and sign or initial the same. In the circumstances, marking of exhibits on the documents and signing or initialling them appears to me to be a practice which had arisen on account of the necessity of fixing the identity of documents for the facility of the Presiding Officer of the concerned Court or appellate/ revisional Courts to enable them to find out the said documents without any difficulty and without their being compelled to compare them with the description in the memo. and with statements of recovery witnesses. If, therefore, the documents can be pin‑pointed on the basis of description given in the memo. and statement of witnesses, there is no bar for the criminal Court to read the said documents in evidence. In the present case, the said documents had been duly admitted in evidence. In the statement of P.W. 6 Abdul Haq, the said documents had been assigned their respective exhibits and their identity is ascertainable from their detailed description given in the memo. and in the statement of the said witness. P.W. 7, Ashfaq Hussain had also given workable description of documents recovered from the dash board of the car in possession of the accused. Each one of the documents so recovered, can be easily spotted with the help or the description by the said witnesses in their statements read with their description in the memo. itself. There is, therefore, no legal hurdle in the way of this Court reading these documents in evidence in this case.

24. In this connection, I may refer to Order XIII, rule 4, C.P.C, and say that notwithstanding that the said provision appears to make it incumbent upon the civil Court to make necessary endorsement on the documents exhibited in evidence, it was held in Hakim Khan v. Aurangzeb and others P L D 1975 Lah. 1170 that failure of learned Civil Judge to mark the documents (as exhibits and sign or initial them) in accordance with the said provision is at the most an irregularity and does not render the documents inadmissible in evidence and there was nothing in law to prevent the Court from looking into and considering documents even if they were not exhibited provided they had been placed on the record by the parties. It was also held in the said case that if any omission had been made by the Court, then it was not due to the fault of party concerned and there was no reason why such party should be penalized for omission of the Court. Respectfully adopting the line taken in this case, I am inclined to think that the omission of the Magistrate to mark the said documents as exhibits and sign them was an act of the Court which cannot be allowed to prejudice the concerned party namely, the State who had placed the said documents on record and there is no bar for this Court to read in evidence the said documents which had not been marked as exhibits by the learned Magistrate under his signature, though they had been assigned respective exhibits in the statement of P.W. 6 Abdul Haq and had been marked as exhibits against their description in the memo. in the Court of learned Magistrate. I, therefore, reject the said contention of the learned counsel for the accused.

25. I am also not inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for the accused that Capt. (Retd.) Abdul Haq had only given a general statement in respect of documents recovered and the said exhibits cannot be considered to have been properly marked as learned Magistrate had put Exhs. P. 6 to P. 21 without specifying each one of the said documents. It is true that the said P. W. Abdul Haq had first given a general description of articles /documents recovered but had later begun to specify that two car keys were Exh. P. 1, one spare wheel P. 2, radio/tape‑recorder was P. 3 and transfer letter P. 4 and blank transfer letter was P. 5 and other documents were P. 6 to P.

21. Now when it is seen that articles/documents described at serial Nos. 1 to 6 in the memo. were marked in the same order as Exhs. P. 1 to P. 6 by the learned Magistrate it can be fully ascertained as to which are the particular exhibits which were assigned by learned Magistrate to each one of the remaining documents from serial Nos. 7 to 21. The statement of Abdul Haq read in the light of marking on the said memo. clearly shows the actual exhibits of each one of the said documents.

26. According to P.W. 7 Ashfaq Hussain, on 29‑5‑1976 at about 3‑30 p.m. accused Muhammad lqbal Basra came in Car No. KCC/8450 and P.W. 6 Capt. Haq and police also came and arrested the accused and on search of the car, a sum of Rs.31,575 P. 22, some receipts, one cheque book and some other articles of that type were recovered from the dash board of the said car. A cheque book of Habib Bank was also recovered and police had taken all these articles into possession by virtue of memo. Exh. P.K. There was absolutely no cross‑examination on this witness by learned counsel for the accused (who is shown in the record of this statement as well as in the interim order of the relevant date to be present in the Court), and therefore, the accused must be deemed to have accepted the correctness of statement of the said P. W. Here learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that this witness had also stated that from the dashboard of the car besides sum of Rs.31,575 Exh. P. 22, some receipts, a cheque book and some other things of the similar nature had been recovered alongwith a cheque book of H . B . L. and he had not specified the said documents. The fact, however, cannot be lost sight of that Ashfaq Hussain was an ordinary fruit/vegetable seller and could not have remembered the detail of so many documents recovered from the dashboard of the car of the accused and the general description which he had given in respect of nature of documents recovered which was not inconsistent with the detail of actual documents shown to have been recovered as per memo. Exh. P.K. was sufficient. And the moment he said that all the said articles had been taken into possession by the police vide memo. Exh. P. K. which he had signed, he owned the statement in the memo. in respect of all the documents taken into possession by the police by virtue of the said memo. In my opinion, therefore, on the basis of the statement of this witness which remained uncontested in cross-examination, the recovery of all the documents/ articles listed and enumerated in Arrest/recovery memo Exh. P. K. stands proved.

27. The upshot of the above discussion is that on the basis of statement of said two P. Ws. besides the car, its keys, spare wheel, radio, tape‑recorder, installed in it, registration book, car insurance certificate, mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 5 of the memo. one blank transfer letter mentioned at serial No. 7 of the memo. and 5 import documents of the said car, mentioned at serial No. 8 of the memo. official receipt of purchase of car by R.U. Siddiqi, mentioned at serial No. 9, blank stamp paper in the name of R. U. Siddiqi listed at serial No. 10, cheque book of H.B.L. of A/c No. 36701 of Abdul Shakoor and 4 documents listed at serial Nos. 18 to 21 of the said memo. there were other documents listed at serial Nos. 6, 7, 11 to 17 of the memo. exhibited as P. 6, P. 7, P. 11 to 17 which had been recovered from the dashboard of the car of the accused. The said latter documents are important for the point of view of their evidentiary value and for facility of reference are described as below----:‑

S. No. in the memo.

Description of documents in the memo.

Exhibit marked on the memo.

6

A receipt in respect of sale of above‑ mentioned car.

Exh. P.6

11

Friends Diary 1974 on second page of which 'Muhammad Iqbal Basra Hussain D.Silva Garden is written and on pages pertaining to 4th and 5 th of March, 1974 and on the reverse page of 31st of May and on page relating to 1st of June, 1974 different test numbers are written.

Exh. P.11

12

Diary of Institute of Bankers in Pakistan, 1974, on page 3 of which Mr. Iqbal S. Bisra 2 Babar House Husain D . Silva Garden is written.

Exh. P.12

13

Six papers on which different test papers are written.

Exh. P.13

14

Nine blank cheques of different banks.

Exh.P. 14

16

Four blank papers on which stamp 689 Chak No. 54/2‑L Depalpur Chowk Okara' is affixed.

Exh. P.16

Out of the above, Friends diary of 1974 Exh. P. 11 is the most important exhibit in this case. On page 3 of this diary the name of Muhammad Iqbal and his address 2 Baber House Hussain D . Silva Garden is written showing that accused Muhammad Iqbal Basra is the owner of this diary. On page relating to 5th March, draft of the T.T. for a sum of Rs.2,67,000 which was to be sent purporting to be from Phool Chauk Branch, Karachi, is available. It reads as below:‑‑---

1626 TT No. 1 A/P (Advise & Pay)

Muhammad Aslam Rs.2,67,000

Dated 18‑5‑1976

UNI Phool

It is notable that T . T . draft is in the name of Muhammad Aslam and accused also posed as Muhammad Aslam in U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore. On the preceding page of the said diary relating to 4th of March, 1974, calculations to arrive at the final code number in respect of said T.T. which was to be sent to Tollinton Market Branch. Lahore, are given. It is also apparent from the draft of the T.T. on that page that it was first made for 17‑5‑1976 and naturally the final code number arrived at after calculations for T.T. for Rs.2,67,000 was different from 1626, the code number for T . T . No. 1 for said sum for 18‑5‑1976. However, page of the said diary relating to 1st of June, 1974, gives the correct calculation and absolutely correct total of 1626 which was the test code for this T.T. No. 1 which was received in Tollinton Market Branch. In this connection Exh. P.J. /1 may be perused which gives 1626 as the test code number. On the opposite page relating to 1st of June, 1974, of the said diary which is on reverse of page relating to 31st of May, 1974, certain test numbers of Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore, are given and fixed number of Tollinton Market Branch is shown as 283. The same fixed number is shown in the break‑up of final test number 1626 on opposite page relating to 1st of June, 1974 and on page of diary relating to 4th of March, 1974. One paper out of 5 papers exhibited in the statement of Abdul Haq P. W. 6 as P.13 (which I may now show as Ex. P.13/5) recovered and taken into possession by virtue of memo Exh. P. K. from the dashboard of the car of the accused shows the figures allotted to the dates, months and different amounts of sums (to be used in making or deciphering of T.T. Codes). Figures other than fixed number of U.B.L Tollinton Market Branch given on the page relating to June 1 of Diary Exh. P.11 to makeup the figure of the final test code as 1626 appear to have been taken from these three tables. For the date 18 in this table, number allotted is 91 which we find written in calculation of the test code of the T. T. on page relating to 1st of June, 1974 of the diary is Exh. P.11 of the accused. Similarly, for the month of 'May' number allotted is 36 on the table in paper Exh. P.13/5 which we again find written in the calculation of the test code in the said page of the diary. Similarly, for 2 lac the figure allotted in the table in paper Exh. P.13/5 is 65, for Rs.60,000 the figure allotted is 8 and for Rs.7,000 figure allotted is 9 and all these figures, namely, 65, 8 and 9 we find written in the said calculation on the said page of the diary Exh. P.11, to make up the sum of Rs. 2,67,000. It appears the remaining two figures shown to have been added in said calculation on the said page of the diary are secret test numbers of the Manager and the second officer which had correctly been given by the accused to make up the total at 1626, which was the test code for this T.T. sent to the Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore. The rough draft of the T. T. message for payment of a sum of Rs.2,67,000 to Muhammad Aslam from U.B.L Phool Chowk Branch, Karachi, to Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore, available on the page relating to 5th of March, 1974 and corresponding of the final test code number 1626 available on the page relating to 1st of June, 1974 on the diary of the accused with the test Code No. 1926 received as per T . T . Message Exh. PJ/1, and the paper Exh. P.13/5 giving tables of the value of date month and sums of money in terms of figures recovered from the accused conclusively show that it was the accused who was the master mind behind the entire incident of a bogus T.T. Message having been sent. In the F.I.R. it was stated that T.T. Code (commonly shown as test number) is a secret information and is only known to officers entrusted to deal with it during the tenure of their posting at a particular branch and it is presumed that some officials of Karachi Branch of U.B.L had revealed this information and in that connection they gravely suspected that Muhammad Iqbal Basra, an ex‑employee of the Karachi Branch had in fact impersonated as Aslam Sheerazi and in active connivance and collaboration with some other persons fraudulently deprived U . B . L. of a sum of Rs. 2, 67, 000. The prosecution witnesses also stated that the said codes/test numbers are secret and are secretly disclosed by the Manager to second officer or by the second Officer to the Manager. However, P.W. 5 Bakhtawar‑ud‑Din, ex‑Manager of U.B.L Phool Chowk Branch, Karachi, stated that accused had already worked as officer at U.B.L Phool Chowk Branch and, therefore, he knew the procedure of the bank. During the period of his service when the Manager and the Second Officer entrusted with the duty of receiving T.T. Message and preparing T.T.Rs. are on leave or are otherwise negligent it can be visualized that the secret code/test numbers can be found out by other officers working in the branch. In any way, it is clear from the recovery of said documents especially the papers containing test numbers including documents P.W. 13/5 that the accused had got these test numbers and had on their basis tried to make T.Ts as shown by page relating to 4th and 5th of March. 1974, of Friends Diary, EXh.P.11 and had succeeded in making the draft T. T. No. 1 to U . B . L Tollinton Market Lahore, for a sum of Rs .2, 67, 000. In my opinion, therefore, the recovery of the Friends Diary containing the exact draft of the T.T. 1 for being sent to U.B.L Tollinton Branch advising payment of a sum of Rs.2,67,000 to Muhammad Aslam and the exact calculation on the basis of which, the said figure 1626 had been arrived at and of the documents especially P.W. 13/5 from the dash‑board of the car giving the tables of figures for date, month and sum conclusively fixes the identity of the accused its the person who had through some untraced collaborator got bogus T.T. Message sent after calculating the test code on the basis of his previous knowledge of the test number which he came by as an officer of the U . B. L Phool Chowk Branch, Karachi.

28. It is notable that out of the said six papers recovered from the dashboard of the car of the accused on one paper (on which I have put mark Exh.P.13/4 in lead pencil) contains a draft of a T.T. Message given on behalf of Jamil bearing his attorney No. 1204 (same as the one in case of T.T. in dispute in the present case). That shows that the accused had come by the attorney number of one Jamil Officer of U . B. L. and was using it so as to show that the said officer was in Phool Chowk Branch while it was not a fact, and the said officer though of U.B.L had never been posted in Phool Chowk Branch. On another (out of the said papers) recovered from the dashboard of the car of the accused, there is a coded T.T. Message (as is given when telegram is given) from U.B.L Phool Chowk Branch. That shows that the accused had engaged himself in making false T.Ts for the purpose of depriving the banks of sums of money. The said two drafts of T.Ts on papers recovered from the dashboard of the car of the accused are highly corroborative of the fact that it was the accused who had made the T.T. which is subject-matter of the present case and had got the same sent to U.B.L Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore.

29. Out of the said five papers recovered from the dashboard of car of the accused and exhibited as P. 13, there are two blue colour papers of a writing pad. I have marked them in lead pencil as Exh.P.13/1 and Exh.13/2. On these two papers fixed numbers allotted to different branches of the U.B.L and test numbers are given. The purpose of the accused in keeping these documents in his possession was obviously to use the fixed numbers of the branches and test numbers in drafting T.Ts. to perpetrate frauds on the banks. There appears to be no other purpose for which the accused could have kept these documents with him.

30. Pages relating 18 and 19 of January, 1974, of the other diary Exh.P.12 of the accused and documents Exh.P.13/3 and reverse of Exh. P.13/4 contain calculations and final figure of the code number of a T. T. They appear to show that accused had after getting the necessary information in respect of different branches of U. B. L. and test codes, made a profession of making T.Ts and depriving the banks of huge sums of money.

31. Learned counsel has contended that no prosecution witness has appeared to show that the disputed writing on relevant pages of Diaries, Exh.P.11 and Exh.P.12 and documents Exh.P.13 were in the handwriting of the accused and therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused from the recovery of the said diaries and the said documents. I am afraid, I cannot accept this plea. For the purposes of this case, it was not at all necessary that anybody should appear and prove that writing on these diaries and the said papers is in the hand of the accused. It is sufficient that these are proved to have been recovered from the dashboard of the case in possession of the accused. The said diaries bore the name and address of the accused as their owner in addition. Mere possession of diaries and the said papers in an incriminating circumstances of great significance. In his supplementary statement under section 342, Cr.P. C. recorded on 28‑1‑1985, the accused denied that these diaries‑and papers with said material written on them were recovered from the dashboard of the car in his possession. He has produced no defence witness to prove that no such recovery took place. The prosecution witnesses have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that recovery of said diaries and papers had been made from the dashboard of the car in possession of the accused on 29‑5‑1976. I, therefore, reject the contention of learned counsel for the accused.

32. Apart from the above, nine blank cheques of different banks and different branches of U.B.L. Karachi, were also recovered from the dashboard of the car in possession of the accused. What could possible be the purpose of, and wisdom behind, keeping these cheques with them, if the intention of the accused was not to commit frauds in the bank through the instrumentality of these documents? Their possession furnishes incriminating evidence of great importance against the accused. Furthermore, four blank forms marked as Exh. P 16/1 to 4, relating to U.B.L Chak No. 41/2L, Depalpur Chowh, Okara Branch, were also proved to have been recovered from the dashboard of the said car. Mere denial by the accused of their recovery is of little consequence when no defence was given to disprove the said recovery. Why should Yar Muhammad Inspector, C.I.A., Karachi, have taken the trouble of going to said branch at Okara from Karachi for getting these papers to use them against the accused? The denial is, therefore, false. These blank forms appear to be meant for confirming a T.T. Message sent already through telegram. Obviously, there was no earthly reason for the accused to have kept these papers with him unless his intention was to send a forged letter of confirmation of T.T. shown to have been sent from U.B.L Chak No. 154/2‑L. Depalpur Chowk, Okara Branch. The said documents are a sure testimony to the existence of mens rea in the accused bringing me to the irresistible conclusion that the accused had collected these documents for the purpose of perpetrating frauds on the banks and making money out of the same. The nature of documents make me draw these inference which flow naturally out of facts and circumstances of the case as well from the nature of the said documents.

Recovery from the house of the accused on 1‑6‑1976:

33. P. W. 6, Capt. (Retd.) Abdul Haq stated on 1‑6‑1976 at 3 p.m., he had alongwith Bashir Ahmad A.S.I. gone to the house of the accused alongwith the accused who was in custody and the accused had from underneath the steel almirah brought out a key and had opened the almirah and had brought out 12 bundles of hundred currency notes for Rs.50 denomination, totalling a sum of Rs.60,000 two test papers of the bank Exh. P 24/1/2, which the police had taken into possession by virtue of memo. Exh.P.L. In cross‑examination, this witness stated that the accused was in front of them and the police officer was behind him. Ashfaq Hussain P.W. 7 also stated that on 1‑6‑1976, he alongwith Capt. Abdul Haq and police officer of P.S. Old Anarkali, Lahore had gone to the house of the accused alongwith the accused in custody and the accused had led them to a room of his house and had taken out a key from underneath a steel almirah and had opened the said almirah and brought out a sum of Rs.60,000 in the shape of 12 bundles of currency notes of Rs.50, denomination each bundle containing 100 currency notes and two papers Exh. P.W. 24/1‑2 containing test numbers of the bank which the police had taken into possession by virtue of memo. Exh. P. L. P. W.12 Bashir Ahmad A. S.I. also stated that on the pointing out of the accused a sum of Rs. 60,000 had been recovered from his flat which he had taken into possession by virtue of memo. Exh.P.L.

34. Learned counsel for the accused has raised a question that no resident of the flat or any other respectable of the locality was joined at the time of search and, therefore, recovery of the said sum of money and two papers does not stand proved. It may, however, be noted that Ashfaq Hussain P.W. 7 who had also testified to the recovery of the said sum of 88.60, 000 and two papers containing test numbers had not been cross‑examined at all although learned counsel for the accused was present at that time as shown by the record of his statement as well as by the interlocutory order of the date on which said statement was recorded. The defence must, therefore, be deemed to have accepted the recovery of the said sum of money and the said two papers. It is also significant that P.W 12 Bashir Ahmad A.S.I. had stated that on the spot other people of the locality had not gathered. P. W. 6 Capt. (Retd.) Abdul Haq had in cross‑examination stated that none of the residents of flats had witnessed the recovery because all the residents of flats were away from flats during the day in connection with their avocations and were, therefore, not available in their flats. In these circumstances, it was not possible for the I.O. to join other persons of the locality at the time of recovery. In cross‑examination, it was suggested to Bashir Ahmad A. S.I. , I.O. that he had obtained the said sum of Rs.60,000 from parents of the accused by threatening them but the said witness denied the said suggestion. There was no follow‑up action by the accused by way of production of any defence to prove the correctness of the said suggestion on factual plane. In his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. recorded on 16‑7‑1981 in the Court of the Magistrate, the accused denied the recovery of both the items but he produced no defence to negate the said recoveries. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the recovery of said sum of Rs.60, 000 and two papers Exh. P.24/1‑2 with test numbers written on them has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt.

35. The said recovery of a sum of Rs.60,000 only 10 days after the occurrence is highly corroborative of the factum of accused having committed fraud and obtained the sum of Rs.2,40,000 from M.C.B. Anarkali Branch, Lahore, Furthermore, as already stated the said recovery was in the shape of 12 bundles, each containing 100 currency notes of Rs.50 denomination each. On the back of the cheque Exh. P.E./1 issued by the accused for a sum of Rs.2,40,000 there is an endorsement by the cashier of M. C. B. Anarkali Branch, Lahore, in respect of the accused having been given 1000 currency notes of Rs.100 denomination and 2,800 notes of Rs.50 denomination to make up the said sum of Rs.2,40,000. The recovery of said sum in 12 bundles of currency notes of Rs.50 denomination is also, therefore, highly corroborative of the circumstances that it was the accused who had obtained the said sum of Rs.2,40,000 from M.C.B Anarkali Branch.

36. Furthermore, the two papers, Exh. P.24/1‑2 recovered from the steel almirah of the accused are also of great significance. Lined paper Exh. P.24/1 again contains a draft of T.T. This is again a testimony to the fact that after his termination from U.B.L. Phool Chowk Branch, the accused had taken to committing frauds in the bank through false T. Ts. If the accused was not to commit a fraud on the basis of this T. T., there was no fun in the act of the accused in keeping this paper in his almirah. The other paper, Exh. P.24/2 gives the tables of numbers allotted to dates, months and to sums of money which is used in making a T.T, and in finding test code of a T.T. That shows that the accused had kept the material at hand in his house for making false T. Ts. Otherwise, after having been relieved of his duties from U.B.L Phool Chowk Branch, there was no sense in his keeping the said tables with him in his house. In my opinion the recovery of the said two papers, one containing a draft of a T. T. and the other, tables of value in terms of figures given to dates, months and sums of money is highly corroborative of the circumstance that it was the accused who had committed fraud in U . B . L. Tollinton Market Branch and M . C . B . Anarkali Branch, Lahore and obtained a sum of Rs.2,40,000 in cash from M.C.B, Anarkali Branch, Lahore.

Previous conduct of the accused:

37. Apart from that P.W. 5 Syed Bakhtawar‑ud‑Din who was Manager of U.B.L. Phool Chowk Branch in May, 1976, had proved the previous conduct of the accused and had stated that he recognized Iqbal Basra who had been working as an officer in U.B.L. Phool Chowk Branch, Karachi and when he had taken charge of U.B.L. Phool Chowk Branch, Karachi, the accused had committed a fraud which he detected. He also stated that before he took over, the accused had committed a fraud in the bank for 4/5 lacs. In cross‑examination, this witness denied that the accused had levelled some allegations against him in connection with which an enquiry was held and it was for that reason that he had come from Dobai to give evidence in this case. There was no other cross‑examination challenging the said previous conduct of the accused and the evidence of this witness in that regard remained unshattered. This evidence of previous conduct of the accused is also highly corroborative of the circumstance that it was the accused who had committed the said fraud and had deprived the bank of the said sum of money by getting a bogus T.T. sent and after showing himself to be. Muhammad Aslant Sheerazi obtained the T.T.R. and its proceeds by deception.

Incriminating evidence of purchase of car by the accused:

38. There is other evidence on record corroborating the factum of the accused having deprived U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch of a sum of Rs.2,67,000. P.W. 10, Manzoor Hussain Bokhari and P.W. 11, Navid Hussain proved, Exh. P. W.10/A, the receipt of sale of car, Toyota Corolla. Model 1976, by Navid Hussain for a sum of Rs.70,800. This receipt had been recovered from the dash‑board of the car of the accused on 29‑5‑1976, and had been taken into possession by the police as per memo. Exh. P. K. and had been exhibited earlier by learned Magistrate as Exh. P.6 also. P.W. 10 Manzoor Hussain proved that the said receipt bore his signature. He stated that in 1976 Navid Hussain had placed his Toyota‑Corolla car in his show room named "Ravi Motors" Lahore for sale. According to him, it was a new car and one Hamza Iqbal had purchased it for a sum of Rs.70,800 on 20‑5‑1976, and a receipt was issued which is on record as Exh.P.W.10/A. In cross-examination, he stated that he could not identify whether the accused present in the Court was the person who had purchased the car. Navid Hussain who was the owner of the said car appeared as P. W. 11 in this case. He stated that he knew the accused, Iqbal Basra, and he had purchased a blue colour Toyota Corolla car from him for a sum of Rs.70,800 and the car which was present outside the Court was the same car which had been purchased by Iqbal Basra from him. He further stated that he had placed his car at Ravi Motors 71 Shahra‑e -Quaid‑i‑Azam, Lahore, and the accused had at the time of transaction shown his name to be Hamza Iqbal. He further stated that the sale receipt, Exh. P.W.10/A (previously exhibited as P.6 also) bore his signature. This clearly proves that the said car had been sold by Navid Hussain to the accused, Muhammad Iqbal Basra, who had then shown his name to be Hamza Iqbal. He also stated that delivery receipt, Exh. P.W.11/A bore the signature of the accused. The said delivery receipt is a photo copy and appears to have been produced before the police and was on the challan file as shown by the endorsement of the S. H.O. of the police station who framed the challan and showed the said document as the last document in the list given by him at the end of his police report, dated 8‑9‑1976. Notwithstanding the fact that it was a photostat of the original receipt, learned counsel for the accused at the time when the said document was exhibited on the record did not object to its being exhibited. He cannot, therefore, raise any objection now and, accordingly the said document shall be deemed to have been proved on the basis of statement of P.W.11 of Navid Hussain. The said delivery receipt, Exh.11/ A, dated 20‑5‑1976 clearly shows the sale of the said car by Navid Hussain to one Hamza Iqbal and acknowledgment by purchaser Hamza Iqbal that he had received the car and found the same in respect of order according to the terms and conditions of the sale. It is signed by Hamza Iqbal. According to Navid Hussain accused Muhammad Iqbal Basra had then given his name as Hamza Iqbal and got the said name incorporated in the receipts and it was subsequently on receipt of summons that he had come to know that the name of the accused was Muhammad Iqbal Basra. The accused has been identified by Navid Hussain seller of the car as the person who had purchased the said car from him. That matter, therefore, stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt.

39. The fraudulent transaction of getting a false T.T.R. issued and of withdrawal of a sum of Rs.2.40,000 from the M.C.B. Anarkali Branch on its basis took place on 18/ 19‑5‑1976 and the accused purchased this car immediately thereafter on 20‑5‑1976. Close proximity of time of the purchase of the said car appears to show that it was with the same sum of Rs.2,40,000 which the accused had fraudulently received from M . C . B Anarkali Branch, Lahore, on the basis of a false T . T . R . that the accused had purchased the said car. Further, the fact that this car had been purchased on the very next date of commission of the fraud is also highly corroborative of the circumstances that the accused had committed the said fraudulent transaction and deprived the U . B . L. Tollinton Market Branch of a sum of Rs.2,67,000.

General Observations:

40. Learned counsel for the accused has urged that Jamil Bullar could not be traced and produced and this defect was fatal to the prosecution story. In my opinion, tracing out of Jamil Bullar and producing him was not all necessary. It was sufficient for the purposes of this case that Bakhtawar‑ud‑Din Manager U.B.L. Phool Chauk Branch had stated that no officer of the name of Jamil was working in U.B.L. Phool Chowk Branch, Karachi, on 18th May, 1976. Learned counsel for the accused has next contended that collaborator of the accused through whom the accused had got the said T.T. Message sent on telephone has not been traced out. In my opinion, that also is not material because in a number of cases the collaboration of the accused and accomplices are not found. That, however, does not prove that the accused is innocent or that the prosecution story is false.

41. For all the above reasons, I am of the view that it has been duly proved that the accused had on 18‑5‑1976 got a bogus T.T. Message sent for payment of a sum of Rs.67,000 to one Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and had got the T.T.R. made in this favour by deception) and had thereafter got the said T.T.R encashed through M.C.B. Anarkali Branch, Lahore, by opening an account in his said false name, and keeping a sum of Rs.25,000 in the said branch as fixed deposit in favour of his fictitious daughter Robins Aslam and another sum in his' own account in the said branch and had fraudulently withdrawn the remaining sum of Rs.2,40,000 from the said bank and misappropriated' the same.

42. In arranging to have sent a bogus T.T. Message (conceived and prepared by him) to the U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore, through an untraced collaborator of his, for payment of a sum of Rs.2,67,000 to Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and in representing himself to be, and in impersonating as, Muhammad Asiam Sheerazi before P. W.2 M. Aslam Chaudhry and P. W. 3 Saif‑ud‑Din Birlas, Manager of U . B. L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore, the accused cheated the said two officers of U . B. L. Tollinton Market Branch and by thus inducing M. Aslam Chaudhry, 2nd officer of the said Branch to prepare and deliver to him the T.T.R. Exh.P.2/3 for said sum of Its. Rs.2,67,000, the accused committed offence under section 419, P.P.C.

43. Again in impersonating before P.W.3. Sh. Muhammad Asif, Manager and P.W. 9, Mirza Fayaz Beg, Accountant M. C. B, Anarkali Branch as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and in opening Account No.2051 in the said branch as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and depositing by means of deposit slip Exh.P.D./1, the said T.T.R. in the said account in that name for collection from U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch and later on collection of said sum from the said branch of U . B . L in issuing two cheques, Exh.P.E./1‑2 in the false and fictitious name of Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi one for a sum of Rs.25,000 and the other for a sum of Rs.2,40,000 and opening a fixed deposit account in the name of his fictitious minor daughter Robins Aslam with himself in his false name as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi as her guardian by means of account opening form, Exh. P. B., the accused cheated the said officers of M. C . B Anarkali Branch, Lahore and induced them to send the T.T.R. for collection from U . B. L. Tollinton Market Branch through State Bank of Pakistan and after collection of sum of T. T. R. induced them to prepare a Fixed Deposit Receipt for a sum of Rs.25,000 in the name of his fictitious daughter Robins Aslam and further induced them to deliver him the said sum of Rs.2,40,000 the accused again committed offence' under section 419, P.P.C. In this connection, I may state that cheating is an essential ingredient of offence under section 419, P.P.C. ante since cheating as defined in section 415, P.P.C. includes inducement to the person deceived, to deliver property to the offender the acts described above resulting in delivery by U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch of T.T.R. for a sum of Rs.2,67,000 to the accused (which is equivalent to money and had special value for the accused and was thus property within the meaning of the word as used in section 415, P. P. C .) and further resulting in delivery by M.C.B. Anarkali Branch, Lahore of sum of Rs.2,40,000 to the accused stand fully covered by section 419. P. P. C.

44. The accused has also been charged for offence under sections 420, P. P. C . which punishes an accused person for cheating any person and for inducing him thereby to deliver any property to him. Section 415 defines cheating. As already observed above, delivery of property as a result of the inducement is the basic ingredient of the definition of cheating as given in section 415, P.P.C. Section 419 includes the factum of fraudulently and dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property by deception based on impersonation. Since delivery of property by inducement as a result of deception falls clearly under section 419, P. P. C . I do not think that the accused can be said to have committed offence under section 420, P.P.C. also when he has already been held to have committed offence under section 419, P. P. C., I, therefore, acquit him of the offence under section 420, P.P.C.

45. P.W. 4 Sh. Muhammad Asif had stated that accused had opened an account on 18‑6‑1976 in M.C.B. Anarkali Branch as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi with an initial deposit of Rs.500 and the relevant account opening form is Exh.P.A. By this evidence he meant to say that the accused had in his false and fictitious name as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi made/executed the said account opening form, specimen signature card of the said account was also taken into possession by the police in this case and that is Exh. P. C. /1 on record. Specimen signatures on it of Muhammad Aslam are just the same as are available on account opening form, Exh. P.A., and therefore, the said S.S. card had obviously been executed by the accused posing as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi. P. W.4 Sh. Muhammad Asif further stated that accused had executed form Exh.P.B. which is account opening form for opening Fixed Deposit Account in the name of fictitious minor daughter Robins Asiam with Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi as her guardian. The said document is also in the same hand and bears the same signatures as Muhammad Aslam. Similarly, specimen signature card bearing specimen signature of Muhammad Aslam as guardian of Robins Aslam, was also taken into possession by the police. It is Exh.P. C. /2 on record. Obviously the said specimen signature card was also executed by the accused posing to be Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi. Similarly, P. W.9 Mirza Fayaz Beg Accountant of M.C.B Anarkali Branch, Lahore, deposed that in May, 1976 the accused had as Aslam Sheerazi got an account opened with initial deposit of Rs.800 and had signed the account opening form Exh.P.A. in his presence. He also stated that specimen signature cards Exh. P. C. /1 and Exh. P. C. /2 had remained in his custody. He had earlier stated that the accused had got a sum of Rs.25,000 deposited in the account of his daughter Robins Aslam. Taking the two assertions together, it appears that he meant that the accused also opened a fixed deposit account in the name of Robins Aslam with himself as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi as her guardian and had in that connection executed account opening form and specimen signature card Exh.P.C./2.

46. In preparing and submitting account opening form Exh. P. A. for opening Account No.2051 in his name as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi in M.C.B. Old Anarkali Branch, Lahore and submitting his specimen signature card for the said account in the false name of Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and further in preparing account opening form Exh. P. B. , in the name of Robina Aslam with himself as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi as her guardian which was signed by him as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and in submitting also a specimen signature card with his specimen signatures as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi for the purpose of cheating M. C. B Anarkali Branch Lahore, the accused committed the offence of forgery as defined under section 463 read with 1st clause of S. 464 and earlier part of explanation II to the said section. He, therefore, committed offence under section 468, P. P. C. in relation to the said documents.

47. In causing P. W.2, M. Aslam Chaudhry, 2nd Officer and P. W.3 Saif‑ud‑Din Burlas to sign/execute T.T.R., Exh.P.L./3 by deception described above in detail, knowing that the said two officers by reason of the said deception practised upon them, did not know the contents of the said T.T.R., the accused committed forgery (of valuable security) as defined in section 463, P.P.C. read with clause thirdly of section 464, P.P.C., illustration (i), and earlier part of explanation II appended to the said section. This he did in order to commit fraud on U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch and caused it wrongful loss for a sum of Rs.2,67,000. He thus committed the offence under section 467, P.P.C. in relation to the said T.T.R.

48. P.W.4, Sh. Muhammad Asif, Manager M.C.B. Anarkali Branch, Lahore, had stated that the accused, Muhammad Iqbal Basra, in his feigned name Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi presented a cheque for withdrawal of a sum of Rs.2,40,000 from his account. He had also stated that the accused had opened account in his branch on 18‑5‑1976. Reading the two together, it is clear that the said witness meant to say that the said cheque for a sum of Rs.2,40,000 was prepared and G executed/signed by the accused. Similarly, P.W.9 Mirza Fayaz Beg, Accountant of M.C.B., Anarkali Branch, Lahore, deposed that the accused got encashed a cheque Exh.P.E./1 for a sum of Rs.2,40,000 and went away with the said cash. He had earlier stated that in May, 1976, the accused had as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi got account opened in M.C.B. Anarkali Branch, Lahore, and had signed the account opening form, Exh.P.A., in his presence. That account opening form bears signature on it as Muhammad Aslam. The cheque in question also bears signature of drawee as Muhammad Aslam. The said signature on account opening form and cheque correspond exactly with each other. Reading all these together, the effect achieved is that the accused prepared and signed the said cheque Exh. P. E. / 1. Even otherwise, it is clear that the said cheque was prepared and signed by the accused. The said cheque is on record in case as Exh. P. E. / 1 and the said account opening form is also on record as Exh.P.A. In respect of the said cheque, the said witness had specifically stated that it had been submitted by the accused representing himself to be Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi. Now the signature as Muhammad Aslam on the account opening form Exh.P.A. correspond exactly with the signature on the said cheque. It is, therefore, proved that the accused had prepared and signed the said cheque. In preparing and signing the said cheque, the accused committed the offence of forgery of a document as defined in section 463 read with clause firstly of section 464, P.P.C. and earlier part of explanation II to the said section. A cheque is a valuable security as defined in section 30 of P.P.C. or is at any rate a document which gives authority to a person named therein as a drawee to receive the amount for which it had been drawn. The said cheque which was one in favour of self or bearer clearly gave authority to the accused acting in his false name as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi to get the said sum of Rs.2,40,000 from M.C.B. Anarkali Branch. The accused did all this to defraud U.B.L. of sum of Rs.2,40,000 cause wrongful loss to the said bank of the said amount and cause wrongful gain to himself. He thus committed the offence under section 467, P.P.C. in relation to cheque Exh.P.E./1.

49. Further, the statements of said two P.Ws. read with documents recovered from M.C.B. Anarkall Branch show that the accused had issued cheque Exh.P.E./2 for a sum of Rs.25,000. In issuing the said cheque, the accused committed forgery as defined in section 463, P.P.C. read with section 464 and earlier part of explanation 11 of the said section as he represented himself to be Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi instead of Muhammad Iqbal Basra. The accused is thus proved to have committed the offence under section 467, P.P.C. in relation to said cheque too.

50. Similarly in representing himself to be Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and in getting prepared an F.D.R. for a sum of Rs.25,000 in the name of Robins Aslam, his fictitious daughter, the accused had dishonestly and fraudulently caused the officers of M.C.B. Anarkali Branch to execute and sign the said document knowing that by reason of deception played upon them they did not know the contents of the said document. He thus committed forgery as defined in section 463, P.P.C. read with clause thirdly of section 464, P.P.C. illustration (i) and earlier part of explanation II to section 464, P.P.C. He thus committed offence under section 467, P.P.C. in relation to the said document too.

51. The accused also used the said I. T. R. and said two cheques knowing them to be forged and thus committed offence under section 471, P.P.C.

52. In consequence, I convict the accused, Muhammad Iqbal Basra, for offences under sections 419, 468, 467, P.P.C. and acquit of the offence under section 420, P.P.C.

53. The accused committed the above offences after having made lot of deliberation /planning. He stole/collected fixed numbers of different numbers of branches of the United Bank Limited, code numbers of dates, months and sums, secret test numbers of Managers and second officer and thus armed himself in advance to send false and fictitious T.Ts. He also gathered information relating to attorney number of Jamil Bullar an officer of U . B. L. in advance to use the same through an untraced accomplice of his who could now pose to be Jamil Bullar for sending a T. T. Message from the other end. The accused committed the said offence by design and deliberately. He had already committed frauds in U. B. L. as deposed to by P.W.5 Bukhtawar‑ud‑Din Furthermore, the said P.W.5 who was Manager of U.B.L. Phool Chowk, Karachi stated that he was asked by U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore, what was the position in respect of a further T.T. for a sum of Rs.2 lac 33 thousand which was yet to be sent by his branch. That shows that M. Aslam Chaudhry had been informed by remitter of message that another T. T. for the said sum was also to be sent for the benefit of Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi. This is fully corroborated by rough draft of T.T. for a sum of Rs.2,33,000 appearing on page relating to March 5 of Friends Diary Exh.P.11. It runs as below:‑-

"2668.TT No.2A/P (Advice and pay) Muhammad Aslam Rs.2,33,000, dated 18‑5‑1976."

2668 is the figure of final test code of the said T.T. The previous page relating to 4th March of the said diary gives the calculation of the date, month and sum and fixed number 283 of Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore with 2668 as its total. The T.T. actually received in the branch was T.T. No.1 as is clear from Exh.P.J./1. The T.T. draft which was available on page relating to March 5, 1974 of the said diary was to be T. T. No. 2. This T. T. was yet to be sent on some future date after changing final test code number commensurate with the new date. Close scrutiny of other documents recovered on 29‑5‑1976 from the dash‑board of the car showed that the accused had future programme for committing further frauds. To show as to what type of punishment should be given to such persons, I cannot do better than refer to a passage from the judgment of Aftab Farrukh, J. in Muhammad Haleem Chohan v. The State 1980 P Cr. L J 128. It runs as below:‑

"In a fraud matter, if there is an organized or a pre‑planned crime, it needs a stern handling and discretion should not be exercised in favour of offenders who have taken to crime as a rewarding profession, otherwise, the entire socio moral‑fabric of the society will collapse. The harvest of judicial laxity in the field of correction is excessive recidivism and a crime rate that is a national scandal and if the Courts fail to keep the balance, we will be buried under the overload of our own laxities. "

The present case is a typical of pre‑planned crime by offender like they accused who has taken to crime as a rewarding profession. The banks are national institutions and the criminal acts of the offenders like the petitioner are likely to shatter the confidence of public in them and destroy the said national institutions. Therefore, no latitude should be given to persons who commit fraud and forgeries in the banks and deprive the national institutions of public funds. In my opinion, therefore, the accused should be given such punishment as‑ would deter not only him from committing such offences again but should act as deterrent to others of his type too.

54. Accordingly for the offence under section 419, P. P.C., I sentence the accused to 7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.6 lacs and in default of the payment of fine to further R.I. for 1 years. For offence under section 468, P. P..C. , I sentence the accused to R . I for a period of 5 years. He shall also pay a fine of Rs.5 lacs and in default of the same he shall suffer further R.I for a, period of one year. For offence under section 467, P. P. C. I sentence the accused to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.8 lacs in default of the same to further R.I for 4 years and for offence under section 471, P. P. C. , I sentence him to R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs.6 lacs and in default of payment of fine to further R.I for 6 months. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Out of the fine, if recovered, a sum of Rs.3 lacs shall be paid to U . B. L. Tollinton Market Branch and the remaining sum shall stand confiscated to the State.

55. The question of disposal of case property may now be dealt with by me. Toyota Corolla Car No. KCC‑8450 which along with all its accessories was recovered from the possession of accused Muhammad Iqbal Basra on 29‑5‑1976 at Karachi has been proved, as held above, to have been purchased by accused in his false and fictitious name of Hamza Iqbal from Navid Hussain at Lahore on 20‑5‑1976 for a sum of Rs.70, 800 while the accused had obtained the sum of Rs. 2, 40, 000 from the M.C.B Anarkali Branch, Lahore on 19‑5‑1976. Close proximity of the date of said purchase to the date of acquisition of the said sum by the accused appears to show that the said sum of Rs.70,800 was out of the said sum of Rs. 2, 40, 000 fraudulently obtained by the accused from I M.C.B Anarkali Branch, Lahore. No evidence was brought on record by the accused to show that he had that much sum of money on that day to purchase the said car at Lahore. There is, therefore, nothing on the record to detract from the finding that the said car had been purchased by the accused with the sum of the amount of Rs.2,40,000 fraudulently obtained by him from M.C.B Anarkali Branch, Lahore.

56. A sum of Rs.31,575 was recovered from the dash‑board of the car of the accused on 29‑5‑1976. Again on 1‑6‑1976, a further sum of Rs.60,000 had been recovered from the steel almirah lying in the house of the accused. Close proximity of the date of recovery of said sums to the date of acquisition of a sum of 8. 2, 40, 000 by the accused from M.C.B., Anarkali Branch, Lahore appears to show that the said sums of Rs.31,575 and Rs.60,000 were out of the sum of Rs.2,40,000 fraudulently received by the accused from M. C. B Anarkali Branch, Lahore. The accused has not produced any defence to explain how he came by the said sums of money which had been recovered from him. The sum of 88.60,000 was in 12 bundles each consisting hundred currency notes of fifty rupees denomination which as already held appeared to show that the said sum was out of 2800 currency notes of Rs. Fifty denomination given to the accused alongwith 100 currency notes of Rs.100 denomination given to the accused while paying him a sum of Rs. 2, 40, 000 as endorsed by the paying cashier of M. C. B Anarkali Branch, Lahore on the back of cheque Exh. PE/1. The said sum of Rs.2,40,000 had been paid to the accused out of proceeds of T.T.R. for a sum of Rs.2,67,000 which the accused had fraudulently got made and delivered to him by U . B. L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore which was the real owner of the said sum of Rs.2,67,000.

57. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the U . B. L. Tollinton Market Branch is entitled to possession of the said car along with its accessories and said two sums of Rs.31,575 and Rs.60,000.

58. Learned counsel for the complainant bank has submitted that U.B.L Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore be declared to be owner of the said property. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to declare title of a person or organization to certain property. It is only a civil Court which can do so. U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch may, therefore, if so advised, approach civil court for any such relief.

59. The car is already in possession of the U.B.L. on Sapurdari. Therefore, in exercise of my powers under section 517, Cr.P.C. I direct that the said bank would continue to hold the said car and its accessories in its possession subject to any order made in appeal by the High Court.

60. The two sums of Rs.31,575 and 60,000 recovered from the accused are in custody of the police. In exercise of my said powers, under section 517, Cr. P. C. I direct that the said two sums be delivered to U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore subject to their executing bonds with one surety each in the said amounts to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court engaging to restore the said sums to the Court of this order is modified or set aside in appeal. This order, however, shall not be carried out for one month or in case an appeal is presented until such appeal has been disposed of.

61. As for the sum 'of Rs.25,000 lying in fixed deposit in M.C.B Anarkali in the name of Robins Aslam, fictitious daughter of the accused who himself posed as Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi and a sum of Rs.2,000 still lying in M.C.B Anarkali Branch in Account No.2051 of the accused in his false and fictitious name Muhammad Aslam Sheerazi, the said sums are clearly out of the proceeds of T. T. R. for a sum of Rs.2,67,000 obtained by the accused from U . B. L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore by committing offences of cheating and forgery of which he has been convicted in this case. U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore was deprived of these sums (and other sums) by means of said offences committed by the accused. Since the said two sums are clearly identifiable to be part of the amount of Rs. 2, 67, 000 of which U . B. L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore was deprived, I, in exercise of my power under section 522‑A Cr.P. C. direct that said two sums be restored to the possession of, and delivered to U.B.L. Tollinton Market Branch, Lahore.

S. A. /2/L Accused convicted and sentenced.