2026 P Cr. L J 158

 2026 P Cr. L J 158

[Lahore]

Before Asjad Javaid Ghural and Muhammad Waheed Khan, JJ

ATTIQUE-UR-REHMAN and others---Appellants

Versus

The STATE through Federal Investigation Agency, Faisalabad and 3

others---Respondents

Criminal Appeals Nos. 136406, 155315 and 172082 of 2018, decided on

7th May, 2025.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 409, 467, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947),

S. 5 (2)---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX

of 1984), S. 10---Criminal breach of trust, forgery, using forged

documents and criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---

Dishonest improvements in evidence---Report of handwriting

expert, absence of---Accused was alleged to have collected cheques

from government department and got them en-cashed in fake

accounts---Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to seven

years---Validity---There was no material available on record that

accused ever visited government office for collection of cheques in

question---Despite availability of CCTV footage no effort was made to

bring it on record; even alleged signatures of accused on receipt for

collection of cheques in question was not sent to Handwriting

Expert to substantiate the charge---Merely on the basis of oral

allegation conviction and sentence of accused could not be sustained

on such charge---Prosecution witness while appearing in witness

box made dishonest improvements on a material point from his

previously recorded statement which was duly confronted to him---

If a witness makes dishonest improvements in his / her statement,

such statement loses significance in the eyes of law---High Court set

aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused, as prosecution

had failed to prove the charge---High Court extended benefit of

doubt to accused and acquitted him of the charge---Appeal was

allowed, in circumstances.

Shahbaz v. The State 2016 SCMR 1763; Tariq v. The State and others

2017 SCMR 1672; Imtiaz alias Taj v. The State and others 2018 SCMR

344; Sardar Bibi and another v. Munir Ahmad and others 2017 SCMR

344; Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Azam 2011 SCMR 474 and

Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 rel.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 409, 467, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947),

S. 5 (2)---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX

of 1984), S. 10---Criminal breach of trust, forgery, using forged

documents and criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---

Appeal against acquittal---Accused was a bank official who was

alleged to have received 46 cheques of different government

departments and got transferred huge amount in the account of co-

accused after getting clearance from NIFT---Trial Court acquitted the

accused of the charge---Validity---At the time of processing 44

cheques accused was serving in the bank as a cashier---All

employees in banks performed duties according to their job

descriptions and there was a teller limit for every employee---Teller

limit of accused was Rs. 250,000/- whereas all 44 cheques were

beyond such limit---It was duty of bank manager or operation

manager to process most of the cheques and due to any inability on

their part to monitor such transaction, accused who was a low paid

employee could not be made a scapegoat---Due to inefficiency or

negligence of superior colleagues of accused, he could not be held

responsible---High Court declined to interfere in acquittal of

accused---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Zaheer Abbas for Appellants.

Zubair Afzal Rana for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 155315 of

2018).

Shahid Ahmad Ranjha, Deputy Attorney General for the State.

Syed Suleman Haider Jafferi for the Complainant (in Criminal

Appeal No. 136408 of 2018).

Date of hearing: 7th May, 2025.

JUDGMENT

ASJAD JAVAID GHURAL, J.---Through this common judgment, I

intend to decide above captioned criminal appeals under Section 410

Cr.P.C. preferred by appellants Attique-ur-Rehman and Faisal Iqbal,

whereby they have challenged the vires of judgment dated

23.12.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, (Offences in

Banks-II), Lahore in case FIR No.110/2014, in respect of offence

under Sections 409,467,468,471,477-A and 34 P.P.C read with Section

5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, (PCA) registered at P.S.

FIA, Faisalabad whereby they were convicted and sentenced as

under:-

Appellant Attique ur Rehman Convicted under Sections 409,467,468, 471 P.P.C read with section

109 P.P.C and sentenced to Seven Years (R.1) under each count

with a fine of Rs 9,45,208/- on each count and in default thereof

to further undergo S.I. for six months. All the sentences were

directed to run concurrently Appellant was also extended the

benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. He was, however, acquitted

under sections 420, 477-A P.P.C and Section 5(2)(47 of PCA.

Appellant Faisal Iqbal

Convicted under Sections 420,467,468, 471 P.P.C read with section

109 P.P.C and sentenced to Seven Years (R.I.) under each count

with a fine of Rs.9,45,208/-on each count and in default thereof

to further undergo S.1. for six months. All the sentences were

directed concurrently. Appellant was also extended the benefit

of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. He was, however, acquitted under

sections 409, 477-A P.P.C and Section 5(2)(47 of PCA.

2 Complainant MCB through its authorized attorney has preferred

Criminal Appeal No.172082 of 2018 against acquittal of respondent

No.2 (respondent), which shall also be decided through this common

judgment.

3. Heard. First of all, we would take up Appeal No.136406/18 filed by

appellant Attique ur Rehman. In the array of nine accused involving in

embezzlement of Rs.2,10,35,199/- relating to different Government

Departments, per prosecution his role was as under:-

"He along with Sudhir Ahmad (since acquitted) received three

cheques from Pakistan Railways by impersonating himself as

Muhammad Qamar Inspector, FBR, which were deposited and

encashed in the account of co-accused Shehzad Khan. He was

further charged that he received four cheques from Anwar-ul-

Haq (PW-18) and encashed in the bogus account of co-accused

Shehzad Khan opened with MCB Dijkot Branch, Faisalabad."

4. As far as first allegation that he by impersonating him as

Muhammad Qamar Inspector, FBR collected three cheques from the

Divisional Accounts Office of Pakistan Railways, Muhammad Akram

(PW-5)/Senior Auditor, while appearing in the dock in the court room

deposed that appellant along with his co-accused Sudhir Ahmad

visited his office, presented authority letter (Ex.P-164), which was in

the name of Mubarik Ali and Sudhir Ahmad and collected three

cheques from him. During cross-examination he deposed that "On

producing the said authority letter, I demanded to show their

departmental ID, upon which Muhammad Sudheer accused present

before the court showed his departmental ID and told that the person

along with him as Mubarak Ali Inspector Inland Revenue, due to which we relied..... When I delivered the cheques to the accused, I

obtained the signatures as recipient on the Exh. P168 and the said

signatures are of "M.Qamar" It is correct that I did not check the

identity card of recipient at any stage.... It is correct that entrance of

our workshop office, CCTV cameras are installed. I had not pro vided

any CCTV footage during investigation to the I.O proving his presence

in the office..... It is correct that it is our duty to hand over the cheque

after checking and verification of the person." Genuineness of

authority letter (Ex.P-164) issued by the Inland Revenue Officer,

authorizing co-accused Muhammad Sudhir and one Mubarik Ali

Qamar to collect the cheques is not disputed. This star witness during

cross-examination not only admitted that it was his duty to verify the

persons to whom the cheques were being handed over but also

conceded that he fails to perform this obligation by not determining

the authenticity of holders of authority letter. There is no material

available on record that the appellant ever visited the office of this

witness. Despite availability of CCTV footage no effort was made to

bring it on record is another drawback for the prosecution. Even the

alleged signature of the appellant on receipt for collection of cheques

(Ex.P-168) was not sent to the Handwriting Expert to substantiate the

charge. In the absence of any such material, merely on the basis of

oral allegation conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be

sustained on this charge.

Furthermore, co-accused Sudhir Ahmad, who was said to be

companion of the appellant at the time of collection of cheques and

statedly identified the appellant as Mubarik Ali Qamar has already

been acquitted of the charge by the Trial Court by disbelieving

prosecution evidence to his extent, against which neither the State

nor the complainant has filed any appeal, as such same set of

evidence cannot be believed to maintain the conviction and sentence

of the appellant. Reliance is placed on cases titled "Shahbaz v. The

State" (2016 SCMR 1763), "Tariq v. The State and others" (2017 SCMR

1672) and "Imtiaz alias Taj v. The State and others" (2018 SCMR 344).

A ready reference may be made to the last one wherein it has been

held as under:-

"The law is settled that if the eye-witnesses have been disbelieved

against some accused persons attributed effective roles then

the same eye-witnesses cannot be believed against another

accused person attributed a similar role unless such eye-

witness receive independent corroboration qua the other

accused person----

5. Next allegation against the appellant was that he collected four

cheques from Anwar ul Haq (PW-18) and got it encashed in the bogus account of co-accused Shehzad. The said witness while appearing in

the dock in the court room deposed that he simply stated that he

handed over disputed cheques to the appellant without mentioning

the date and time of handing over said cheques to him. Further,

during cross-examination he deposed that "It is not mentioned in

black and white in any record of the office that I had handed over

the above said four cheques to accused Attiqu-ur-Rehman......I had

not got any receiving letter from accused Attiqu-ur-Rehman in that

respect." This witness was the custodian of the disputed cheques and

it was his duty to at least bring on record anything in black and

white to whom the said cheques were being handed over. Mere oral

allegation of the witness against a particular employee in the

absence of any supporting material in the shape of receipt of

cheques by the appellant, cannot be made basis to hold him guilty of

the offence. Furthermore, there is also no material available on

record that the appellant got deposited said cheques in the account

of co-accused.

Moreso, this witness while appearing in the witness box made

dishonest improvements on material point from his previously

recorded statement (Ex.DA4), which was duly confronted to him. It is

well settled law that if a witness makes dishonest improvements in

his/her statement, the same loses the significance in the eyes of law.

Reliance is placed on cases reported as "Sardar Bibi and another v.

Munir Ahmad and others (2017 SCMR 344), Muhammad Saleem v.

Muhammad Azam (2011 SCMR 474) and Muhammad Mansha v. The

State (2018 SCMR 772)"

In view of above, we are unanimous in holding that the prosecution

has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant Attique

ur Rehman beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, by extending him

benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. His surety

and bail bonds are discharged from the liability. Appeal stands

allowed accordingly.

6. Now coming to Appeal No.155315-18 filed by appellant Faisal

Iqbal against his conviction and sentence. Allegation set out by the

prosecution against the said appellant was as under:-

"He fraudulently presented cheques of different Government

departments for encashment in the account of co-accused

Shehzad Khan and from the account of said accused an amount

of Rs.56,75,500/- was transferred in his account, which was also

withdrawn by him."

7. We have minutely examined the entire evidence and are of

considered view that sufficient incriminating material in the shape of documentary evidence is available on record that he presented two

cheques (Ex.P-87 and Ex.P-90) which pertained to the Government

institutions in the MCB and deposited the same in the account of co-

accused Shehzad. The Investigating Officer (PW-23) collected

statement of appellant's account, which established that not only an

amount of Rs.56,75,000/- was transferred in his account from the

account of co-accused Shehzad but he also withdraw said amount and

some of the amount was further transferred in the accounts of co-

accused Sajid Mehmood and Nasir Mehmood. Appellant has also

failed to bring on record any justification for depositing the cheques

of government institutions in the account of co-accused Shehzad and

then receipt of huge amount in his account from the account of said

co-accused.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant was asked how such

transactions can be defended, he with some hesitation finally resorted

to alternate prayer for reduction of sentence of the appellant to the

imprisonment already undergone. This submission was not seriously

opposed by the learned Law Officer as well as the learned counsel for

the complainant.

9. As per report submitted by the Superintendent, District Prison,

Faisalabad vide memo. No.JB/9707 dated 08.10.2024, the appellant

has served out four years, seven months and nine days of his

substantial sentence excluding remissions, if any and was finally

released from the jail on bail on 12.11.2018. The continuous

incarceration of the appellant for such a long period, has served the

very purpose of prosecuting him and has met the ends of justice. We

deem it appropriate to maintain conviction of the appellant with the

modification of his sentence to the imprisonment already

undergone. However, amount of fine and sentence in lieu thereof

shall remain intact. Since appellant is on bail, he is directed to pay

the fine within 30 days, otherwise, he shall be taken into custody for

serving out sentence imposed in lieu of fine. Appeal stands dismissed

accordingly.

10. Appeal No.172082 of 2018 is against acquittal of respondent No.2

filed by the MCB/complainant. Allegation against the said respondent

was as under:-

"He while serving in MCB got opened a fictitious account of co-

accused. Shahzad Khan and illegally and fraudulently received

46 cheques of different Government Departments which could

not have received in MCB and got transferred the amount of

Rs.2,10,35,199/- in the said account after getting clearance from

NIFT." 11. It is an admitted fact that alleged fictitious account of co-

accused was not opened by the respondent while serving in the bank

rather opened by one Muhmmad Taimoor (PW-4), however, the case

of the prosecution was that the respondent referred him to (PW-4)

for opening of account. We have anxiously gone through the account

opening form of co-accused Muhammad Shehzad (Ex.P.2) and

observed that relevant column in this regard was blank. Further,

when the fraud came in light and the police reached at the given

address of co-accused, it was found that he never resides at the said

address. It is thus manifestly clear that proper inquiry was not made

prior to opening of the account by (PW-4). It was the duty of (PW-4)

to duly verify the antecedents of the co-accused before opening of

the account and he cannot shrug off his responsibility by merely

stating that the account holder was referred to him by his colleague

(respondent), in particular, when the column met for the said

purpose was left blank. This allegation of the prosecution being

devoid of any documentary support has rightly been disbelieved by

the trial Court.

12. So far as the allegation against the respondent that he received

46 cheques of different government departments and got transferred

huge amount in the account of co-accused after getting clearance

from NIFT is concerned, we have observed that at the time of

processing of 44 cheques respondent was serving in the bank as

Cashier. It is an admitted fact that all employees in the banks

performed duties according to their job descriptions and there is a

teller limit for every employee. Muhammad Yaseen, (PW-

1)/complainant during cross-examination admitted that teller limit of

respondent was Rs.2,50,000/-, whereas, all the above 44 cheques were

beyond said limit. Complainant (PW-1) during cross-examination

deposed that The high value transactions are monitored by the

branch manager... It is duty of the Operation Manager to check,

examine and match the particulars of cheques with the vouchers and

then post the same." It is thus manifestly clear that it was the duty of

the Bank Manager or Operation Manager to process most of the

disputed cheques and due to any inability on their part to monitor

such transaction, respondent who was a low paid employee cannot

be made scapegoat. Muhammad Rizwan (PW-2), who used to clear

NIFT during the period of scam, admitted during cross-examination

"to check and examine the cheques prior to its further transmission

or entry etc is his duty" Thus due to inefficiency or negligence of

superior colleagues of the respondent, he cannot be held responsible.

In view of above, the trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the

respondent from the charge and no exception can be drawn therefrom. Resultantly, instant appeal being devoid of any force stands

dismissed.

MH/A-92/L Order accordingly.