ORDER SHEET
Crl. Appeal No. 23 of 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Order with signature of Judge
1. For hearing of main case.
2. For hearing of M.A. No. 404/2019.
-------------
29th August 2019.
Mr. Mehmood-ul-Hasan, advocate for appellant.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Khatri, Asst. Attorney General alongwith Ahmed Jan Khan, I.O. FIA CBC.
>>><<<
Appellant Muhammad Fayyaz Shah has challenged judgment dated 19.12.2018 passed in Case No. 08/2015 (Re. The State vs. Muhammad Fayyaz Shah in Crime No. 07 of 2015 under Section 409/420/468/471/109/34 PPC, registered at Police Station FIA CBC) whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:
a) Accused Muhammad Fayyaz Shah S/o. Muhammad Yaqoob Shah convicted under section 409 PPC and sentenced to suffer 07 years R.I. and fine of Rs.21,16,080/- and in case non-payment of fine he shall suffer further R.I. for 02 years.
b) Convicted him under Section 420 PPC and sentenced to suffer 05 years R.I. and fine of Rs.30,000/-. In case of non-payment of fine he shall suffer further R.I. for 03 months.
c) Convicted him U/s 477-A PPC and sentenced to suffer 05 years R.I. and fine of 30,000/-. In case of non-payment of fine he shall suffer further R.I. for 03 months.
Both the sentences to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.
2. Precisely relevant facts are that the accused (appellant) was posted as Customer Services & Operation Manager in UBL Regal Chock Branch, Karachi UBL SMCHS Branch and UBL Mehmoodabad Branch and during the course of his posting at these branches he made flying entries debiting internal branch general ledger and various heads of branch expenditure account in the sum of Rs.961900 (initially detected amount) without any supporting bank voucher and credited his personal salary account and then withdrawn the amount through cheques and ATM. When the fraudulent and flying entries were detected the accused (appellant) admitted his guilt, therefore, he was handed over to the FIA alongwith complaint addressed to the AD FIA CBC Karachi. After full dressed trial, the trial Court found the appellant guilty and awarded him sentence as referred herein above.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant contended that trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true perspective as, according to him, evidence produced by the prosecution was inconsistent, conflicting and contradictory hence untrustworthy. He also contended that there were serious improvements and contradictions in statement of prosecution witnesses, trial Court did not consider vital aspect of the case that there is no evidence on record against the appellant, therefore, the impugned judgment is not maintainable.
4. In contra, learned DAG supported the impugned judgment to be just and proper and in accordance with law, hence, requested for dismissal of instant appeal.
5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is first offender and has served one year, nine months and eight days sentence including remission; no other criminal case of like nature is pending against him; he is sole bread earner for his family. After making these submissions, learned counsel contends that he would not press the instant appeal, if sentence is reduced to the one already undergone.
6. Quantum of punishment is not only discretion of the Court, which has to be exercised while considering the circumstances of the case, but also is an independent aspect of Criminal Administration of Justice which, too, requires to be done keeping the concept of punishment in view.
7. Since the offence with which the appellant is convicted fall within the category of offences “may extend upto’; the appellant claims himself to be first offender, which is not denied by the prosecution, and sole bread earner of his family, these are circumstances which justify reduction in sentence.
8. In view of above, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to already undergone. Accordingly conviction is maintained but sentence is reduced to one already undergone.
With the above modification the appeal is disposed of.
JUDGE
JUDGE
SAJID