1992 PLP 1508 (MLD)

7. There are certain facts and circumstances in this case which are either admitted or proved. These are:‑‑ (i) The appellant was working as Cashier in the office of Director, Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution, Karachi. (ii) The appellant had received a sum of Rs.39,173.87 as social security contribution from various mills, factories and organisations. (iii) The amount of Rs.39,173.87 which was received on 29‑12‑1985 and 30‑12‑1985 was not deposited in Government treasury till‑1‑1‑1986. (iv) The appellant had lodged. F.1.R. (Exh.22) at Korangi P.S., under section 382, P.P.C. read with section 14 of . the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. (v) The investigation carried out by Korangi police revealed that the F.I.R. (Exh.22) lodged by appellant was false and no such incident had taken place. (vi) The appellant had confessed his guilt before Mr. Ghulam Akber, Director of the Institution. (vii) None of the prosecution witnesses had any reason to depose falsely against the appellant. (viii) No effort was made by the appellant to pursue his report (Exh.22). (ix) The appellant did not file direct complaint in the crime after the police failed to take any action against the culprits. (x) The appellant did not examine Iqbal Badshah Chaukidar, the only witness cited by him in F.I.R. (Exh.22) in defence. (xi) The appellant was dismissed from service after holding departmental inquiry against him.

8. Bearing in mind the admitted and‑ proved facts let me now examine the evidence of prosecution witnesses in the light of the circumstances on the record to satisfy myself whether they have honestly narrated the facts leading to the misappropriation of a sum of Rs.39,173.87 by the appellant. I have also examined their evidence in juxtaposition with the plea set up by the appellant in F.I.R. (Exh. 22), to see whether I could reasonably reach a conclusion that the latter version could be held to be true or that it in any appreciable measure rendered the case of the prosecution doubtful. Mr: Ghulam Akbar (P.W.1) was the Director of the Institution when this incident took place. He has deposed the facts reproduced by me in the narrative part of this judgment. According to him the appellant had misappropriated the aforesaid amount and then staged a false drama of theft/robbery. The version of Mr. Ghulam Akbar (P.W.1) gets A support from the remaining witnesses, who, as observed above, had no reason to depose falsely against the appellant, who quite admittedly kept the amount received by him on 29‑12‑1985 unauthorisedly upto 1‑1‑1986. The conduct o the appellant again lends support to the case of the prosecution. He kept quiet after lodging F.I.R. (Exh.22) and took no pains to pursue it, if he was really a victim of four unknown culprits. The copy of application dated 9‑2‑1986 sent by him to Inspector‑General of Police and a certificate of Chief Post Master which are placed on record at this stage do not improve the case of the appellant. These documents were to be proved through proper mode.

9. Iqbal Badshah Chaukidar, who was the only witness cited by the appellant in his F.I.R. (Exh.22) was not examined in defence, although he would have been the proper person to throw light about the alleged incident, if it had really taken place. This is a. strong factor which militates against the bona fides of the appellant.

10. On the materials before me which have been examined by me, with all possible care and attention, I have no hesitation in holding that the version put forward by the appellant appears to be inherently absurd and he is guilty for the offence with which he is charged.

11. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant shall serve out the sentence imposed on him. He shall surrender before the trial Court forthwith. The trial Court shall take necessary steps for the remand of appellant to custody if he fails to appear before it within one week from the receipt of R&P. N.H.Q./M‑1609/K Appeal dismissed.