1991 PCr (PLP)

Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1991. Title appeals arise from the judgments dated 20-10-1986 recorded by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha convicting the appellant under section 409, P.P.C. and sentencing him till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.50,000 or in default thereof S.I. for 2-1/2 years (Criminal Appeal No.681. of 1986), Rs.10,000 or in default thereof S.I. for 10 months (Criminal Appeal No.682 of 1986), Rs.3,000 or in default thereof S.I. for three months (Criminal Appeal No.683 of 1986) and Rs.10,000 or in default thereof S.I. for ten months (Criminal Appeal No.684 of 1986). He has appealed. Since common questions are involved hence it is proposed to dispose of all the four appeals by the single judgment.

2. In 1974, District Works Council, Jhang allotted works (two of the value of Rs.20,000 each and two of the value of Rs.30,000 each) to be executed by a Project Committee with Fazal Hussain Shah appellant as the Chairman. The amounts sanctioned were drawn by the Committee. On checking it was learnt that a little amount out of the amounts sanctioned for the four works had been spent. Cases F.I.Rs. Nos.9 dated 14-9-1974, 61, dated 14-8-1975, 56, dated 14-2-1975 and F.I.R. No.6 dated 14-8-1975, Police Station A.C.E., Jhang respectively, were registered against the appellant and his co-accused who were challaned to the Court.

3. Muhammad Ismail and Riaz Ahmad co-accused were acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Sardool was acquitted after the conclusion of the trial. Only the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the four cases leading to the present appeals. The necessary facts are proved on the record and admitted by the appellant. The appellant admitted that he was the Chairman of the Project Committee, the moneys were sanctioned and drawn by him but he pleaded that the money drawn by him had been spent upon the works and that he had been falsely involved due to political factionalism.

4. The question, therefore, falling for determination in each case was whether the money had been spent by the appellant or it was misappropriated. In this respect we have only the statement of Mumtaz Hussain Jafari, S.D.O./Technical Officer Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore (P.W.1). His report (P.W.1/A) simply shows that Sardool Khan, Secretary, Project Committee', was required to maintain proper accounts of the projects in hand which he failed to do. It is only mentioned at the end that the assessment of the work actually done by the Committee (worked out to amounts less than the actually sanctioned and drawn amounts). Thus, there was misappropriation. How this assessment has been made, there is nothing in this report nor in the statement of the S.D.O. Hence there is no evidence to definitely show beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that the work got done by the appellant as Chairman of the Committee, had resulted in some misappropriation. If there was some negligence on the part of the appellant, proper remedy may be sought against him but criminal liability cannot be said to be established beyond any reasonable doubt.

5. The appeals are, therefore, allowed. Granting him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted. SA./F-258/L Appeal accepted.