1992 P CT (PLP)

Ghulam Hussain Malik for Appellant. M. Iqbal for the State. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1992. Ishtiaq Hussain son of Gulzar Ali Shah, Storekeeper in the Office of, the District Population Welfare Officer, Bhakkar, was sent up for trial by Police Station Saddar, Bhakkar for an offence under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Sargodha, vide his judgment, dated 15‑5‑1991 convicted and sentenced him under the above‑mentioned sections to three years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.2,30,000 or in default further imprisonment for one year. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that complainant Ashiq Hussain took charge as District Population Welfar Officer, Bhakkar on 23‑2‑1986 and ordered Muhammad Ramzan, P.W., Assistant District Population Welfare Officer to check the stock-register. Ishtiaq Hussain, accused was Storekeeper. Muhammad Ramzan asked the accused to prepare a list of articles in his custody but he did not do so, instead he proceeded on leave on 4‑3‑1986. Thereafter he asked for extension in leave, which was not allowed, yet he did not report for duty. A committee compromising of Muhammad Ramzan, Assistant Welfare Officer, Abdul Razzaq and Fasahat Hussain, P.Ws. Accountant and Deputy Population Planning Officer, respectively, was constituted. The Committee broke open the store and carried out physical checking. They prepared list Exh.P.A. and Exh.P.B of the stock on comparison with the stock‑register Exh.P.G., 23,5000 dozen of condoms were found short. Rana Ashiq Hussain, P.W., on receipt of the report sent complaint Exh.P.D. for registration of a case. Muhammad Zarif, Moharrar, Police Station Bhakkar, on the basis of the complaint recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.P.S. The case was investigated by Abid Hussain P.W.6, A`.S.i., who prepared site plan Exh.P.O. and took the stock‑register Exh.P.G. into possession vide memo. Exh.P.L. On 6‑8‑1986 he arrested the accused and after necessary investigation submitted the challan.

3. Prosecution in order to establish its case produced 11 witnesses in all P.W.l Rana Ashiq Hussain stated that the appellant was working as Store-keeper in his office. He went on three days leave and thereafter sent a telegram for extension in leave. The extension was refused and he was asked to report for duty but he failed to do so. Under the directions of the witness, a committee was constituted which carried out physical verification of the stocks in custody of the appellant and found shortage of condoms of 23,5000 dozen. The witness got the case registered with the police. In cross‑examination he admitted that no officer had informed him about the shortage in the stock. He further admitted that in the monthly stock report no shortage was mentioned for the month of February, 1986. He however, denied the suggestion that he had involved the appellant on account of enmity. Muhammad Ramzan, P.W.2 stated that the, committee consisting of the witness and two others was constituted to carry out physical checking of the stocks, which they accordingly did. They also prepared a list of the articles found in the store. In cross examination, he admitted that he had signed the register produced by the accused. Abdul Razzaq, Accountant P.W.3 was member of the Committee which had carried out physical verification of the stocks. Waheed Iqbal, P.W.4 was given charge of the store. Mrs. Niaz Qureshi, P.W.5 stated that in the month of February, 1986 she had received 400 dozen condoms from the accused, which she accordingly, mentioned in her monthly report. Abid Hussain, S.I. P.W.6 had partly investigated the case. Fasahat Hussain, P.W.7 was member of the Committee which checked the store. Wakila Begum, P.W.8 had taken 1,000 condoms in February, 1986 from the accused. Muhammad Sharif, P.W.9,.Deputy Director Population Welfare Programme Planning and' Development was deputed to hold a preliminary inquiry against the appellant, which he accordingly did and submitted his report Exh.P.R. Mrs. Naeem Akhtar, P.W.10, Family Welfare Councillor received 1,100 condoms from the accused in February, 1986 but she did not sign the register. Muhammad Zarif PW.11, Head Constable had registered the formal F.I.R. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined without oath, wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations anti pleaded innocence: He further stated that the case against him was manipulated on account of his enmity with one Ibrar Hussain, Officer in the Department. He, however, did not produce any defence evidence nor appeared on oath in his defence.

4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that every month the appellant used to send stock report and no shortage was ever detected. Submits that P.W.2 had checked the stock earlier and did not detect any shortage, therefore, subsequent shortage is nothing but a cooked‑up affair. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.

5. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. It is not disputed that the appellant was a Storekeeper in the Family Planning Department. It is also not disputed that he went on three days ' leave and thereafter applied for extension which was not allowed. Senior Officers have appeared in evidence against the appellant. They were not even cross‑examined on the point of enmity. No enmity as such was put to any witness. Simple assertion of enmity without giving any instance or incident, cannot be of any help to the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant was incharge A of the store wherein so many articles were kept, yet shortage has been shown only in one item, which rules out the possibility of manipulation. The statements of the‑witnesses inspire confidence and can safely be relied upon. I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that‑no recovery was effected from the appellant, therefore case is not proved against him. Where the evidence otherwise inspires confidence it can be relied upon without recoveries which can only serve as corroborative piece of evidence. There is, however; substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the sentence is too severe because the appellant has lost his job. He has lost pension as well as he is the only bread‑winner of the family. Therefore, the sentence may be reduced. I have noticed that the appellant has already undergone about nine months' imprisonment which I feel is sufficient in the circumstances of the case. For what has been discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the C appeal fails which is, accordingly, dismissed. The sentence is, however, reduced .to the period already undergone by the appellant. The sentence of fine, is reduced to Rs.30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand only). The sentence of one year in case of default in payment of fine is, however, maintained The appeal is disposed of in these terms. N.H.Q:/I‑15/L Appeal Dismissed