MUBARIK ALI vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal by the Lahore High Court of the petitioner's appeal against his convictions and sentences for criminal breach of trust. The petitioner, a Sub-Postmaster, was convicted in two separate cases for embezzling funds received from customers for deposit into their accounts, having made entries in the passbooks but failing to record them in the official ledger and savings bank journal. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's signatures on the passbooks could be legally proven without the testimony of a handwriting expert, and whether the petitioner, as a supervisor, could be held liable for the failure to make ledger entries despite the specific duties assigned to the Savings Bank clerk under the Pakistan Post Office Manual. The Supreme Court held that the convictions were sound, finding that the testimony of postal employees familiar with the petitioner's handwriting was sufficient proof, and that the direct evidence of the petitioner receiving the money established his liability. The petition was dismissed, affirming that expert opinion is not the sole method for proving handwriting when other competent evidence exists.
- Is the opinion of a handwriting expert strictly required to prove a signature in a criminal case?
- Can a supervisor be held liable for embezzlement when direct evidence proves they personally received the funds, despite departmental rules assigning entry duties to subordinates?
- Is the testimony of employees familiar with a person's handwriting sufficient to prove a signature?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Paragraph 434(2) A.(1), Pakistan Post Office Manual Volume VI
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal, by the Lahore High Court, of his appeal filed to challenge his convictions and sentences recorded in to cases, namely, 50 of 1976 and 51 of 1976, under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947).
2. The petitioner, who was Sub-Postmaster at Katchery Post Office, Gujranwala, had, in Case No. 50 of 1976, received, on 24-ti-1972. Rs.10,000 from Raunaq Ali P.W. For deposit in the latter's account, in respect of which he made entry in the pass book but did not make corresponding entries in the ledger and saving bank journal of the Post Office and embezzled the money. In the other case he received Rs.5,000 from Ghulam Hussain, P.W. For a similar purpose but also embezzled the same in like manner.
3. The contention is that the petitioner's signature could not be considered proved in the absence of an opinion in this regard of handwriting expert. There is no legal basis for the contention.
Moreover, there is evidence of the postal employees conversant with the petitioner's handwriting, who testified that the signatures in the pass books were his. The next contention is that under para. 434(2) A.(1) of the Pakistan Post Office Manual, Volume VI, it is the Savings Bank clerk at a Sub- Office who is concerned with the making of the relevant entries and as such the petitioner being only on supervisory duty was nut concerned. Unfortunately, there is direct evidence that the money had been received by the petitioner himself.
4: We are satisfied that the appraisement of the evidence by the Courts below suffers from no legal infirmity requiring an interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.