P L D 1953 Lahore 32 (PLP)

M. KHURSHID ZAMAN, J.

This order will dispose of Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 435 and 436 of 1952. These petitions arise out of two cases in which Muhammad Yousaf petitioner, a postman of the General Post Office, and Muhammad Latif, a delivery clerk in the same post office, were convicted under section 52 of the Post Office Act VI of 1898, and each sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The sentences in the two cases were ordered to run consecutively. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, acquitted Muhammad Latif but maintained the convictions and sentences of the petitioner. He has come up in revision to this Court. In this case which forms the subject‑matter of Criminal Revision No. 435 of 1952, the petitioner and Muhammad Latif were alleged to have misappropriated the amounts of three money orders, while in the other case, which forms the subject matter of Criminal Revision No. 436 of 1952, they were alleged to have misappropriated the amount of another money order. The money orders in question were issued from the General Post Office, Lahore, payable to residents of places outside the city of Lahore. The payees could not be found and the money orders were returned to the office of issue. A note in the handwriting of the petitioner on these money orders shows that their respective amounts were paid back to the remitters. It was, however, discovered later that the remitters had not received back their money. This discovery led to the prosecution of the petitioner and Muhammad Latif under section 52 of the Act. The prosecution case was that the amounts of these unpaid money orders were misappropriated by the petitioner and Muhammad Latif. The defence of the petitioner, on the other hand, was that he had made the payment at the window to certain persons under the instruction of Muhammad Latif, who was his immediate superior officer and whose order he was bound to obey. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that money, if sent by money order, is not a "postal article" as defined in the Act, not can it be stolen or misappropriated "in course of transmission by post". The expression "postal article" is defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Act, which reads as follows:‑ "The expression "postal article" includes a letter, postcard, newspaper, book, pattern or sample packet, parcel, and every article or thing transmissible by post": The money remitted by money order is certainly not one of the things specifically mentioned in the definition. But is it not an "article or thing transmissible by post"? The words "article" and "thing" are no doubt wide enough to include money but to constitute an offence under section 52, the theft or mis?appropriation must be in respect of money "in course of trans?mission by post", and if it is never transmitted to the post office of delivery, no question of its theft or misappropriation in course of transmission can arise. Mr. S. K. Ahmad, who appeared for Crown, while conceding that the specific money which is paid by the remitter at the office of issue is not transmitted, argued that so long as a sum equivalent to the amount paid by the remitter is not paid to the payee, or returned to the remitter the money order remains "in course of transmission by post", and if during such period the amount of the money order is stolen or misappropriated, an offence under section 52 is committed. This contention raises the question whether money order is a "postal article" as defined in the Act, because if neither the money, nor the money order form accompanying it, is a "postal article" no offence such as is contemplated by section 52 can be said to have been committed. I have already expressed my opinion that money sent by money order is not an "article or thing transmissible by post". So far as the money orders are concerned they are not included in the list of things which are specifically mentioned in the definition. It, however, remains to be considered whether the words "article or thing transmissible by post" apply to money orders. The words "article or thing" are of general import. But according to the well‑known rule of ejusdem generis their application must be confined to things which are in nature similar to those which are expressly ‑mentioned in the, definition. With the exception of a postcard, which is expressly included .in the definition, all other postal articles must be in the nature of a letter, packet, parcel or some such thing. This is made clear by reference to sections 11 and 38 of the Act. The relevant portion of subsection (1) of section 11 is in the terms:‑ "The addressee of a postal article on which postage or any other sum chargeable under this Act is due, shall be bound to pay the postage or sum so chargeable on his accepting delivery of the postal article, unless he forthwith returns it unopened". Subsection (1) of section 38 enacts:‑ "Every postal article received at the office of the Post Master General under subsection (3) of section 37 shall be dealt with as follows:‑ (a) if practicable, it shall be redirected and forwarded by post to the addressee; or, (b) if it cannot be redirected and forwarded as aforesaid, it shall be opened by some officer, appointed by the Post Master General in this behalf and bound to secrecy, in order to ascertain the name and address of the sender". The word "unopened" used in subsection (1) of section 11 and the word "opened" in clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 38 clearly suggest that "postal article" is something which is in the nature of a parcel or a packet. The scheme of the Act also shows that the Legislature did not intend to ‑include money order in the definition of "postal article". There is no reference to money orders in Chapters V to VII, which deal exclusively with postal articles. Chapter V lays down conditions of transmission of postal articles. Chapter VI relates to registration of postal articles. Chapter VII prescribes procedure for the undelivered postal articles. Chapter IX is devoted exclusively to money orders. The treatment of these two subjects under different chapters is, in my opinion, a clear indication that one excludes the other. After giving my anxious consideration to .the matter, I am of the opinion that neither money sent by money order nor the money order form accompanying it, is a "postal article" as defined in the Act, and, consequently, the acts alleged against the petitioner do not constitute an offence under section 52 of the Act I, therefore, accept these petitions set aside the convictions and sentences of the petitioner under section 52 of the Act and acquit him. A. H. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.