1986 PLP 1842 (MLD)

5. P.W.3 Muhammad Islam an accouht‑holder has deposed that he deposited Rs.22,000 in his Account No 140 on various dates for which he had received counterfoil of pay in slips and amounts had been paid personally to accused Shafi Muhammad who gave him these counter foils. He has admitted his signatures on Exh.2/E.

6. Account‑holder P.W.4 Abdul Latif has deposed that he has deposited Rs.7,000 and paid the amount in cash to accused Shafi Muhammad who gave him counterfoil of the pay in slip duly signed. He wanted to withdraw the money from the account when he came to know that the amount was not available in his account.

7. P. W . 5 Girdhgri Lal has deposed that he has not deposited Rs.25 000 in his Account N'o.381. Since this amount was not deposited by him he gave a cheque for Rs.25,000 to accused Shafi Muhammad at his request.

8. P.W.6 Shaukat Ali has deposed that they have deposited Rs.1,00,000 in Account No.146 and he did not find credit entries for these amounts..

9. The accused in his 342, Cr.P.C. statement has denied the allegation. About his admission of guilt in Exh.2/G he has stated that it was obtained under duress. He was compelled to do payment, which was not due from him at all. He produced the defence but the evidence of the defence witnesses is not material.

10. P.W.1 has identified the signatures of appellant on the documents, which have been produced by the prosecution to establish guilt of the appellant. The appellant has not challenged the statements of the witnesses. Account holders have also supported the prosecution allegation against the appellant. There is overwhelming evidence against the accused. The accused admitted his guilt before P.W.1 and has given statement Exh.2/G in which he has stated that he misappropriated the bank accounts as follows:‑ Agricultural Loan (Production Loan) Rs. 3 20,600.00 9 different persons deposited. Rs.1,81,000.00 Money in their accounts, which are not credited Rs. 29,600.00 I had to refund the amounts of two Haj deposit account which I have not refunded. I have taken amount from three accounts through S.E.

23. Rs. 2,000.00 CL‑1 were deposited in Abdul Hameed accounts which did not credit. Rs. 14 000.00 O . D . in personal account of Muhammad Suleman. Rs. 15,000.00 I passed false cheque from SB Account No:524 of Muhammad Qasim. Rs. 18.000.00 Deposited by A. Rahman Ali account as per ass‑book. Rs. 13,000.00 __________________ Total Rs. 6,11.200.00 He has also admitted that he has taken loans from the villagers amounting to Rs,49,120 which he had taken in his personal use. He has also admitted that he had opened Account No.317 in the name of Muhammad Ibrahim and he credited Rs.3,20,600 on various dates. He also admitted that he took agricultural loan in March, in the name of 49 persons amounting to Rs.1,96,

000. He has given the names of these persons in his statement. He also admitted that he again got sanctioned the loan in March‑April, 1981 in the sum of Rs.1,42,985 in the names of nine persons. He also admitted that he handed over the slips to Saeed Muhammad, Jumma, Lakhano Mal, Abdul Latif, Hyderi Factory, Muhammad Hassan Murri, Islamdin and Haji Moula Bux after putting the signatures and he had 'taken the amounts in his personal use. He has also admitted that he has given short loans amounting to Rs.80,000 to several persons names of whom he has mentioned in his statement. He has given further details of embezzlement in his statement. Even minor details have been B given in his statement Exh.2/G which has been produced by P.W.1. There was no motive for falsely implicating the present appellant. The account‑holders have also appeared and they have stated that they made payments to the accused and the accused had given pay in slips which bear the signature of the accused /appellant. The appellant had obtained agricultural loan in 'fictitious names and misappropriated the same. The appellant then deposited Rs.5,53,

625. All these facts would prove the guilt of the accused to the hilt. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the finding of the learned trial Judge. He has not been able to point out any infirmity in the prosecution evidence. His only contention is that the allegation against the appellant was that he had misappropriated Rs..6,17.249.24 out of which he had made the payment of five lacs and less than rupees one lac has been embezzled by him but the maximum punishment has been awarded by the trial Court. He prayed for the reduction of sentence. The offence had been committed in 1981‑

82. Complaint was filed on 26‑12‑1982 and the formal F.I.R. was registered on 15‑8‑1983. An amendment in law was brought in on 23‑2‑1984. He, therefore, submitted that the amendment could not be‑ used against the appellant with retrospective effect. He has relied on the case of Muhammad Dawood v. The State PLD 1985 Karl 730 wherein it has been held that accused would be dealt with in matter of punishment in accordance with law in force at the time of commission of offence. We have also taken such view in a number of cases. Keeping in view all the facts we reduce the sentence under section 408, P.P.C. to one year R.I. and fine of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) or in default of payment of fine R.I. for 11 months more and under section 477‑A, P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for one year and D fine of rupees one lac only or in default to suffer further R.I for 11 months. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. The appellant will also be entitled to the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. With this modification in the sentence the appeal is dismissed. The appeal was disposed of by a short ‑order, dated‑15‑5‑1986 and the above are the reasons for the same. M.Y.H. Appeal partly accepted.