1989 P Cr (PLP)

Nemo for Appellant. Arshad Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 7th December, 1988. A case under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was registered with Police Station Ichhra, Lahore. Later on the investigation was taken over by the special police establishment which submitted the challan against the appellant. The case came up for hearing before Special Judge (Central), Lahore who vide his judgment, dated 24‑3‑1965, convicted him under section 409, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of P.C.A. and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.300 or in default further R.I. for a period of six months. Muhammad Aslam convict has appealed against his conviction and sentence.

2. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 20‑4‑1965, when his sentence was also suspended. The case has been lingering on for quite a long time because neither the appellant nor his counsel was available. In such circumstances, with assistance of learned counsel for the State, I proceed to decide the appeal.

3. The allegation against the appellant is that he was posted as Sub‑Post Master, Walton Training School, Sub‑Post Office on 16‑1‑1960. He is alleged to have misappropriated Rs.81/14 on 16‑1‑1960 and thereafter did not come to the post office. On 18‑1‑1960, an intimation was sent by Rehmat Dad, the then Postman, to the office of the Superintendent Post Offices, Lahore, who deputed Taj‑ul‑Malook, to conduct an inquiry. The departmental inquiry revealed that cash amounting to Rs.81/14 was missing. The prosecution in support of its case has produced 10 witnesses in all. The appellant also produced five witnesses in his defence. A perusal of the prosecution evidence reveals that the involvement of the petitioner is beyond doubt. The defence plea taken by the appellant in his statement under section 3.12, Cr.P.C. is to the effect that he had left the post office on 18‑1‑1960 after working hours and, thereafter, because of some domestic problems he ran away from his house, therefore, did not come to the place of his duty. As has already been held that the prosecution evidence does inspire confidence and the involvement of the appellant is beyond any doubt, therefore, the only question which remains to be resolved is of his sentence. The case was registered as far back as 1960 and the appellant was convicted on 24‑3‑1965. I don't think it will serve any useful purpose if the appellant is sent behind the bar to undergo the remaining period of his sentence. In these circumstances, while disposing of the appeal, I reduce the sentence of the appellant to the one already undergone by him. With this observation, the appeal stands disposed of. H.B.T./M‑1173/L Order accordingly.