RASHID UDDIN vs The STATE
The petitioner, Rashid Uddin, along with co-accused, was charged, tried, and convicted under sections 471, 403, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the Special Court (Banks) Karachi for entering into a conspiracy to defraud United Bank Limited and fraudulently withdrawing Rs. 6,60,000 using forged cheques. His subsequent appeal before the High Court was dismissed. In the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his name was omitted from the F.I.R., that the handwriting expert's report was withheld, and that his conviction rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, Muhammad Sadiq. The Supreme Court examined the record and held that the testimony of Muhammad Sadiq, who had worked with the petitioner for years and was familiar with his signatures and duties regarding T.T. messages, was lawfully and correctly relied upon by the lower courts. The Court ruled that the appreciation of evidence was proper, the absence of the handwriting expert's report was inconsequential since the defense failed to summon it, and no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
- Whether a conviction for bank fraud and forgery can be sustained on the testimony of a single witness familiar with the accused's signature?
- Does the omission of an accused person's name from the First Information Report vitiate a subsequent conviction based on trial evidence?
- What is the legal consequence when an accused fails to summon a handwriting expert's report referred to during trial proceedings?
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 403, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
S. A. NUSRAT, J.--The petitioner was charged under sections 471 and 403 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the Presiding Officer of the Special Court (Banks) Karachi along with Din Muhammad and Anis Haider for entering into conspiracy to defraud United Bank Limited and in pursuance of the said plan and common intention having managed to withdraw in all a sum of Rs.6,60,000 by three cheques from 5-8-1984 to 23-8-1984 from Account No. 18851 opened in the name of "Star Enterprise". The petitioner and the co-accused Din Muhammad were convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.14,00,000 or in default to further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The petitioner was convicted under sections 471 and 403/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Anis Haider was, however, acquitted.
2. The above judgment of the learned Special Court dated 6-2-1986 was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court but his appeal was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned judgment, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner's name did no: appear in the F.I.R., although the signatures of the petitioner were' examined by a handwriting expert his report was not produced and the conviction was based on the evidence of only one witness, namely, Muhammad Sadiq. According to the learned counsel Uzair Ahmad Siddiqui (P. W.9) was a witness to the facts of the case alone and not to the identity of the accused.
4.We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court as well as the impugned judgment. The learned two Courts believed Muhammad Sadiq (P. W.8) as a truthful witness. According to Muhammad Sadiq the petitioner was working in the banking department and was incharge of T.T.
Section. He had worked with the petitioner in the banking department for 4/5 years and thus was familiar with his signature. It was stated by him that he had signed the voucher Exh.3/C-3 after the same was already signed by the petitioner and Badrul Hasnain. Further, according to him the petitioner was incharge of receiving T.T. Messages and it was his duty to prepare debit/credit vouchers like Exh. 3/C-3. The evidence of this witness with regard to the signature of the petitioner cannot be said to have been illegally believed by the learned two Courts. Nothing turns on the fact that the name of the petitioner was shown in the F.I.R. No attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner to summon the report of the handwriting expert. The evidence in the case has been appreciated in accordance with well-settled legal principles and no question of law arises for consideration. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.