1985 P Cr (PLP)

M. Fazal Naul for the State. Date of hearing: 30th September, 1984. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 30‑5‑1981 convicted Sh. Abdul Sattar appellant under section 409, P.P.C. and sentenced him to 15 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.300 in default thereof to further R.I. for 3 months.

2. The appellant was posted as Agricultural Officer, Kot Radha Kishan. The charge against him was that on 21‑8‑1976 he received Rs.28.46 and 198.74, the sale‑proceeds of the pesticides from Muhammad Younas and Muhammad Boots P.Ws. and instead of depositing in the treasury, he misappropriated the same.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined 9 witnesses. Muhammad Boots P.W. 2 and Muhammad Younas P.W. 4 stated that they had given Rs.198.74 and 28.46 to the appellant as the sale‑proceeds of pesticides for depositing in the treasury and had obtained receipts Exh. P.W. 2/A and Exh. P.W. 4/A, Muhammad Ibrahim Khalid P.W. 6 stated that the appellant was working as Agricultural Officer and that the had received the amount of Rs.227.20 from Muhammad Younas and Muhammad Boots P. Ws. He further stated that on the enquiry, the appellant admitted having received this amount but he could not produce any proof of its deposit in the Government Funds. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced 4 witnesses. Abdul Jabbar D.W. 1, Abdul Rehmat D.W.2 and Zakir Hussain D.W. 3 stated that the appellant was a man of good reputation and that he was involved on account of departmental tussle. D.W. 4 Muhammad Ismail stated that the appellant was falsely involved in the case.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and that Muhammad Boots and Muhammad Younas are not reliable witnesses and that no handwriting expert was produced to prove the signatures of the appellant on receipts Exh. P.W. 2/A and Exh. P.W. 4/A. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel' for the parties with care and have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. To my mind, Muhammad Boots and Muhammad Younas are quite independent witnesses having no ill‑will against the appellant. They have stood the test of cross‑examination. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any inherent infirmity in their statements. They have produced receipt executed by the appellant which show that the amount was actually received by him. Furthermore, he admitted before Muhammad Ibrahim P.W. 6 that he had received this amount from the witnesses The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. For all these reasons I am convinced that a case of criminal breach of trust by the appellant under section 409, P.P.C. is made out and as such he was rightly convicted by the trial Court. The sentence awarded to him is not only legal but also proportionate to the crime committed by the appellant.

7. For what has been stated above, the appeal is dismissed. I.D. Appeal dismissed.