1984 PLP 1423 (SCMR)

The petitioner is the Chief Accountant of Lawrencepur Woollen and Textile Mills. The respondent No‑1 was employed as its Marketing Officer and resigned the post on 1st of February, 1978. He handed over the charge on 7th of February, 1978. AB an employee of the Mills, the respondent had the facility of semi‑furnished house. On the 16th of April, 1978, Malik Fazal Umar P.W.4 and Amir Dad P.W.5, two employees of the Mills visited his residence in order to retrieve the furniture which was given to him for official use while he was in the employment of the Mills. He failed to account for it on which the petitioner on 17th of June, 1978 addressed a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi, complaining of the criminal breach of trust in respect of the furniture of which a list was enclosed and which was valued at Rs.6,

375. A First Information Report was registered on this complaint on the 23rd of June, 1978 at Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad. At the trial, five witnesses were produced to prove the entrustment and the dominion of the respondent No.l over the property and his failure to account for it. Respondent No.l denied having committed breach of trust and instead, stated that he had obtained the clearance and paid for the 'articles which were to be returned, by him but had not in fact been returned, he produced in defence Muhammad Yaqub, Assistant Accounts Officer of the Mills who stated about his having cleared the amounts due from him. The trial Court held the offence under section 406, P.P.C. proved beyond reasonable doubt, convicted the respondent No.1 for it and sentenced him to one years' R.I. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the inventory Exh.P.C. which was put in evidence for showing entrustment to the respondent No.l and his dominion over the property, was a forged document and further that the clearance of the accounts by the respondent showed that there was nothing more to be handed over to the employer. He accepted the appeal and set aside the conviction. On revision, the High Court declined to interfere in the acquittal by observing as follows:‑. "The learned Assistant Advocate‑General concedes that the signature Exh.P.C./1 of Qamarul Islam, respondent, on inventory Exh. P.C. has not been properly proved to be that of the respondent. In these circumstances, takaing into consideration the other findings given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, with regard to 'the said document, this is not a fit case for admission. This appeal. Is, therefore, dismissed in limine." The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was sufficient oral and documentary evidence to establish that respondent No.l had dominion over the property of the employer during the course of his employment and that he failed to return 'the same after he resigned from service. It has also been contended that the observations of the first appellate court so far as the conduct of the employer is concerned, is harsh and undeserved because even respondent No.1d,id not specifically disown the signatures on the inventory nor was it his case that it was a forged document. He relied more on the clearance certificate and the discharge of his financial responsibility in the matter on account of his having made the necessary payments. We have examined the reasoning of the first appellate Court. The acquittal is based not only for absence of proof of signature, on the inventory but also on the clearance obtained by the respondent No.l in respect of the articles supplied to him for use during tine p course of his employment. The Additional Sessions Judge made tine following observations with regard to the genuineness of signature Exh.P.C./1:‑ "These signatures have not even been proved to be those of the accused. I have myself seen these signatures and find Borne sort of over‑writing in them. By raising slightly the side of Exh . P. C . and thereafter seeing the signatures in light, it 'Was rendered absolutely clear that a clear attempt has been made to copy out the signatures by tracing signatures from some signatures of the accused and thereafter over‑writing on those traces. I have got this Exh.P.C. sealed in my presence so that this document may not be tampered with. These signatures are definitely forged." The learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded as follows:‑ "This Exh. P.C. has been found by me to be a forged document, The persons who are the forgers or privy to the forgery cannot be relied upon if they make statement against the accused person . In view of the plea taken by the respondent No.l in which, he did not allege either forgery or specifically deny his signature P.C ./1, it is difficult to sustain these observations of the first appellate Court. The case of the prosecution reached the level, as was pointed out by the Assistant Advocate‑General in the High Court, where the signatures had not been properly proved to be that of respondent No.l. TOE prosecution case could not be taken to any higher level. Besides, toe evidence of the clearance of the dues is strong evidence in favour of respondent No.l. There does not appear to be sufficient support from the records for establishing the entrustment of the listed property or the failure of the respondent No.1 to account for it or to return it. Similarly, the case of the petitioner for permission to keep the furniture and residence even after resigning from service is not established trim any documentary evidence and the oral evidence in respect of it is discrepant. We find that the acquittal of the respondent was not liable to interference and except for expunging the findings with regard to the forgery by the employer in the records, we would dismiss this petition refusing leave to appeal. S. Q. Leave refused.