1984 P Cr (PLP)

S. 420/468-Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 (2) Accused simultaneously, serving two Government departments for 3 months in same city and getting monthly pay from both Depart ments every month-Officials of both Departments deposing that accused served their Departments during relevant period and received monthly pays for said period-Nothing on files of both Departments available showing that accused ever resigned from their Departments during relevant period-Receipt of pay supported by pay bills duly exhibited on record--Official witnesses not bearing . any grudge against accused rather clearly disinterested persons and their evidence based on-official documents-Refund of amount received by accused to one Department showed that accused felt remorse over his illegal conduct-Sentence of imprisonment already undergone by accused and fine of Rs. 2,000, held, was sufficient punishment in circumstances. Khan Bahadur Khan for Appellant. K. G. Sabir for the State. Date of hearing : 20th February, 1983. The appellant was tried on a charge under section 420/468, P. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Peshawar who in consequence of the trial found him guilty of the charge and sentenced him under the above provisions of law to one years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default further R. I. for six months, vide his judgment dated 23rd August, 1980, the legality of which is impugned by the appellant in the present appeal before this Court. The prosecution case is that the appellant was simultaneously serving two Departments, namely, Food Department at Nowshera and Population Department also at Nowshera and were getting monthly pays from each Department every month. In support of its case the prosecution placed on record the pay bills of both Departments to show that the appellant had received monthly pays from the two Departments for the months of November, December, 1976 and January, 1977. The case of the appellant was that originally he was serving the Population Department as Moti vator till 26th November, 1976 when he resigned and thereafter joined service in the Food Department as Junior Clerk. He denied to have re ceived any pay from the Population Department after he resigned from that Department on 26th November, 1976. The prosecution examined officials of both Departments as witnesses who deposed that during the material period from November, December, 1976 and January, 1977, the appellant was serving their Departments and that he received monthly pays for the said period from their Departments. The appellant was unable to prove that he had resigned the Population Department from 26th November. I976 and hid thereafter, joined service in the Food Department. The officials of the Population Department were examined in this behalf and they stated that there is nothing on the file of their Department that the appellant had resigned from their Department with effect from 26th November, 1976. Their statements in this behalf cannot be doubted. I am satisfied that the appellant was getting monthly pays from both Depart ments during the material period and this fact is borne out from the pay bills duly exhibited and placed on record. The officials witnesses produced in the case by the prosecution in support of this case cannot be said to bear any grudge against the appellant. They are clearly disinterested persons and their evidence is based on official documents, namely, pay, bills. The appellant has alleged that he was involved in the present case falsely on account of his close blood relations with one Wali Muhammad Khan of P. P. Party. This plea raised by the appellant is not at all worth- consideration. It is far-fetched to believe that the witnesses were opposed to Wali Muhammad Khan and on that account involved the appellant in the present case. There is no evidence on record to suggest even by and indication that the appellant was involved in the present case, as Wali Muhammad Khan was not on better terms with the witnesses. This was just a bogey raised by the appellant and is not worth reliance, credit worthy and inspiring in the circumstances of the case. The learned Special trial Judge has rightly found him guilty of the charge and I do not see any reason to interfere with his impugned finding. The record shows than the embezzled amount drawn by the appellant was refunded to the Popula tion Department and this is not denied by the learned counsel for the appellant. This shows that the appellant felt remorse over his illegal conduct to serve the two Departments at the same time in order to get monthly pays from both Departments. In this view, I consider that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would be sufficient and as regards the fine of Rs. 2,000 it should be maintained. As a result; this appeal is dismissed with the above modification. M. Z. M. Appeal dismissed