19681 P Cr (PLP)

2. At the outset the learned counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary objection that there has been a violation of section 222, Cr. P. C. which illegality is not curable under section 537, Cr. P. C. and as such the conviction and sentence of the appellant should be set aside.

3. The charge framed against the appellant reads as follows:‑.‑‑ "That you on or about the 5th day of May 1962, when you were posted as Head Cashier Habib Bank, Jhelum, and the cash including the coins and the currency notes were in your custody, according to the papers which were prepared by you, coins of the value of Rs. 54,778.41 were present in the bank, but you instead of depositing the coins you deposited the currency notes in the National Bank and thus a decrease of Rs. 29,684.73 were found in the bank and thus you misappropriated the money and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on the said charge." When the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. he admitted that he was appointed as Head Cashier of the Habib Bank, Jhelum, on the 18th of October 1953 and Head Cashier till the 25th of July 1962, did he misappropriate the suns of Rs. 29,684.73, ho replied in the negative. From the above it is clear that he was tried for misappropriation during the period he was Head Cashier of the Bank, I.e., from the 18th of October 1953 to the 25th of July 1962. Manager Habib Bank Jhelum Muhammad Taqi Ullah (P. W. 1) gave evidence that the sum of Rs 29,684.73 was misappropriated by the appellant from 13th of June 1959 to 7th of May 1962. From the above it is clear that the appellant is alleged to have misappropriated the aforementioned amount not within one year and as such there should not have been one trial for the said amount as laid down in section 222, Cr. P. C. which reads as under:‑ "(1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was com mitted, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed; without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall lie deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 234: Provided that the tinge included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year." Thus the Code gives power to a Court to hold one trial for criminal breach of trust of the sums misappropriated only, within the period of one year In case Nazir Ahmad v. King‑Emperor (A I R 1936 P C 253 (2)) it was held:‑ "The rule which applies is that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden." In view of the above the trial is illegal and 1, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him. He is on bail and should be discharged from his bail bond. This order will not stand in the way, if the prosecution wants a retrial. Appeal accepted.