1990 PLP 1125 (SCMR)

ABDUL OADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave against the order dated 28‑5‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby in exercise of its revisional powers, it imposed upon the petitioner one year R.I. in addition to the sentence of fine already imposed by the trial Court.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner while posted as Moharrir Registration for the years 1972 to 1976 at Jhelum, received rupees about 40,000 as registration fee but did not deposit Rs.36,891.37 in the Government Treasury and thus misappropriated the same. The case was registered against the petitioner on the report of Qazi Abdul Qayyum PW. 13 ACE (R)/Joint Registrar Jhelum at Police Station, Jhelum.

3. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. PW. 1 Ch. Naeemullah, Advocate, was declared hostile. PW. 2 Syed Ali Attar Shah Clerk, in the office of the Deputy Commissioner deposed that the petitioner has been serving as Registration Moharrir from 1‑11‑1976 to 11‑11‑1976. PW. 3 Khalid Mahmood Akhtar, Clerk, Office of the Deputy Commissioner deposed that he produced Cash Book relating to period extending over 1‑11‑1974 to 20‑12‑1975. Syed Sajjad Hussain PW. 4 stated to have prepared list of registered documents from 1‑11‑1976 to 11‑11‑1976. The petitioner in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. denied the charge against him. He admitted that he had been making entries in the receipts but alleged that the Joint Registrar had involved him in this case in order to save his own skin.

4. The trial Court on the assessment of the entire evidence before it, found the petitioner guilty and convicted the petitioner under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act lI of 1947 and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.36,891.37 and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for two years. It was 'further directed that as Rs.15,000 were recovered from the house of the petitioner, while realising the amount of fine from him, the said amount of ks.15,000 shall be deducted and Rs.21,891.37 only shall be realized from him.

5. The High Court while dismissing the appeal enhanced the sentence to one year R.I. in addition to the sentence of fine.

6. The petitioner was admitted to bail in Chambers by this Court on 22‑7‑1989.

7. The allegation against the petitioner was established through the evidence of Syed Sajjad Hussain, P.W. 4 who stated that he prepared the list of the registered documents from 1‑11‑1976 to 11‑11‑1976 and the total amount of registration was Rs. 47,195.12 out of which Rs.10,303.75 only were deposited in the Government Treasury and the remaining amount of Rs.36,891.37 was not deposited in the bank. Allah Rakha PW. 5 was the recovery witness of the money from the house of the petitioner. Ch. Akhtar Hussain, PW. 6, Malik Mohammad Ramzan, Advocate PW. 7 and Manzoor Elahi Dar, Advocate PW. 8 stated that each of them got registered a sale‑deed and payment was made to the petitioner. Qazi Abdul Qayyum PW. 13 deposed that due to the conduct of the petitioner he became suspicious and informed the Deputy Commissioner, Jhelum. On his request, the record was checked at random and it was discovered that the petitioner had not deposited the fee relating to the period from 1‑11‑1976 to 11‑11‑1976. The petitioner had deposited about rupees eight or nine thousand only. He, therefore, directed Syed Sajjad Hussain PW. 4 to prepare the list of registered documents. He corroborated the statement of Syed Sajjad Hussain, PW about the misappropriated amount. Maj. (Recd.) Muhammad Alam (PW. 15) deposed that Rs.315 were paid by him to the petitioner as Registration Fee. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah (PW. 16) deposed that on the pointation of the petitioner, Rs.15,000 were recovered from the house of the petitioner.

8. The prosecution evidence fully established the case against the petitioner. The finding of the Courts below that the case against the petitioner stood proved is not open to any exception. The petitioner in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. admitted that he has been making entries in the receipts. In the High Court the petitioner had raised the following points for consideration on merits:‑‑ (1) that the allegation of recovery of Rs. 15,000 could not be proved because the public witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution; (2) that all the witnesses who paid the registration fee to the appellant were not produced, therefore, it should be presumed that the remaining witnesses if produced would not have supported the case of the prosecution; (3) that in view of the circular letter Ex. DW. 1, there was no post of Joint Registrar, therefore, Qazi Abdul Qayyum MIC was not competent to act as such; and (4) that Qazi Abdul Qayyum Joint Registrar PW. 13 himself got the case registered because he wanted to save his own skin.

9. The High Court has rightly rejected these points after due consideration on the basis of the record before it. The petitioner was rightly convicted. There is no force in this petition. As the petitioner has remained in custody for more than six months and the case was registered in 1976 while dismissing the petition, we reduce the substantive sentence to the already undergone. However, the fine imposed by the trial Court would remain intact. In case the petitioner has not deposited the amount of fine, he shall be arrested for undergoing the sentence in default of payment of fine. With this modification in sentence of the petitioner, the petition is dismissed. N.H_Q./M.‑1272/S Order accordingly,