1994 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 20th October, 1993. Muhammad Ali, Field Assistant, in the Office of Deputy Director of Agricultural, Lahore with Muhammad Aslam, Assistant Horticultural Officer, were sent up by Anti-Corruption (Establishment) Lahore, for trial, for an offence under section 409/468/471, P.P.C. Senior Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, vide his judgment, dated 6-7-1986, gave the benefit of doubt to Muhammad Aslam and acquitted him. Muhammad Ali appellant was however found guilty for an offence under section 409, P.P.C. and convicted and sentenced to six months' R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000, or in default thereof further R.I. for one year. It was directed that the fine if recovered Rs.5,340 shall be paid to Agricultural Development Supply Corporation as the amount misappropriated. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same. The prosecution story in brief as disclosed in the F.I.R. was to the effect that the appellant during the year 1975-76 was working as Field Assistant. He was entrusted with 120 crates of imported Potato Seed for sale to land-owners. The entrustment was of 120 crates. The accused paid some of the amount but Rs.5,340 were not paid by him in spite of the best efforts, therefore, the present case. The complaint Exh.P.W.l/1 was made by Muhammad Ali Bajwa, Additional Secretary, Agricultural Department with regard to an occurrence which had taken place in the year 1976. Formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A. was recorded by Rana Abdus Sattar; P.W.7, who investigated the case as well. The prosecution in support of its case produced seven witnesses in all. Muhammad Ali Bajwa, P.W.1 had lodged the F.I.R. In cross-examination he stated that he was not certain if the appellant was competent to receive 120 crates. The witness was also not aware if Iftikhar Khan, Field Assistant was the Incharge, Kitchen Gardens Scheme. He further admitted it to be correct that under the Kitchen Garden Scheme the seed in question might have been given to the officers and stated that price should have been recovered from them working alongwith him. P.W.2 Mr. Ihteram Ali Shah, Audit Accounts Officer stated that he could identify the handwriting of Malik Muhammad Aslam as well as that of the appellant as he had worked with them. The entry was in the handwriting of the appellant. Mushtaq Ahmed, P.W3 Cashier admitted that he did not know who was authorised to sell and deposit the sale proceeds. He further stated that there were three other Field Assistants working in the Department. He admitted that cultivation was done in the houses of the officers. He also admitted having seen potato seed lying in the Verandha of the Office of Deputy Director, Agriculture Division. P.W.4 Muhammad Sharif Bhatti, a Retired Head Clerk of the department stated that on the resignation of the appellant he was issued a clearance certificate. P.W.5 Muhammad Mazhar had given the record of the case to the Investigating Officer. Faqir Muhammad, Retired Accounts Officer, P.W.6 stated that it was brought to his notice that the appellant was to deposit Rs.4,000 which he did not, therefore, he wrote a letter asking him to deposit the said amount, on which the appellant replied that the money in question had already been paid to Muhammad Adam co-accused. The witness further deposed that he did nazi check the amount in question if it had actually been deposited by the appellant. In cross -examination he admitted that it was the joint duty of both the accused to sell potato seed. P.W.7, Rana Abdul Sattar had investigated the case. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence appellant was examined on oath. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He admitted the entries at Serial Nos.6 to 14 in his hand. He stated that he had delivered the potato seed to different people on the direction of his superior Muhammad Adam co-accused He contended that he had been depositing the entire amount but some of the money was handed over to co-accused which was not deposited by him. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not proved at all. Submitted that it has come from the mouth of the prosecution evidence that the appellant was not the sole incharge for the sale of potato seed; instead it was the duty of Muhammad Aslam co-accused who was his officer. Argued that from the prosecution evidence it was clear that the potato seed was also supplied to the officials of the department under Kitchen Garden Scheme and if at all any shortfall in the money it was on account of supply to the officials. Argued that it has not been established beyond doubt that the appellant had misappropriated the amount in question. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The amount in question allegedly misappropriated also become doubtful because Ihteram Ali Shah, retired Accounts officer stated that it was brought to his notice that an amount of Rs.4,000 was to be deposited by Muhammad Ali. On the other hand the charge against him was that he was to deposit an amount of Rs.5,

340. The same witness further stated that the appellant alongwith his co-accused used to sell potato seed. Similarly Mushtaq Ahmed, Cashier, stated that he was not aware who was competent to deposit the sale proceeds- He further stated that he saw potato seed lying in the Verandha of the Office of Deputy Director, Agriculture. The statements of the witnesses noted above find full corroboration to the statement of the appellant wherein he had stated that after the sale he had deposited the money with his co-accused who misappropriated the same. Even otherwise the prosecution has not been able to point out the exact amount misappropriated. For what has been discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, while extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant, I set aside his conviction and sentence. He is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged. N.H.Q./M-1283/L Appeal accepted.