P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

(Sd.) M. NIZAMUDDIN AHMED Chief Officer, Dated 23‑1‑

58. Hyderabad Municipality." As a result of enquiry, Altaf Ahmad was prosecuted before the Special Judge on the following charges under sections 409/ 477‑A P. P. C. r/w section 5 (2) of Act 11 of 1947 and the charges were read to him. It was alleged that :‑ (i) He removed page 70 of the Permanent Advance Register ; (ii) He misappropriated Rs. 1,276‑14‑0 as detailed below :‑ (a) On 3‑2‑56, he received Rs. 2,736‑4‑0 from Abdul Rashid vide Ex.

13. Out of this amount, he misappropriated Rs. 681‑8‑0 entered on Dakhila Nos. 6891 to 6895. (b) On 7‑2‑56, he received Rs. 172‑10‑0 vide Dakhila receipt No. 7707 while he entered only Rs. 127‑10‑0 (Exh. 23) at page 76 and thus misappropriated Rs. 45. (c) On 19‑4‑56 he made bogus entries and misappropriated Rs. 587‑14‑

0. The accused pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution, four witnesses were produced. P. W. Muhammad Ishaque, Chief Officer of the Municipality proved that he had reported the matter to the Anti Corruption Department vide Ex.

3. P. W. 2 Rasul Bux deposed that he made enquiries against Altaf Ahmad and reported his misappropriation and defalcations. He also proved that Ex. 23 was in the handwriting of the accused and so were Exhs. Nos. 14, 21, 22, 24 and

25. He said that he was familiar with the handwriting of the accused. P. W. 3 Akram Beg is a formal witness. P. W. 4 Wazir Hussain Shah is also another formal witness who submitted papers for prosecution. The accused denied the charge. He said that he did not remove any page from the Permanent Advance Register nor did he misappropriated the amount as alleged. Exhs. Nos. 12, 13, 23, 24 and 28 were put to him by the learned Judge. He admitted‑ his handwriting in Exhibits Nos. 11 and 23 only and denied the rest. He could not say why Inspector Rasul Bux deposed against him. He produced two witnesses. D. W. 1 Masroorul Hasan said that he found Altaf Ahmad inefficient. D. W. 2 Khuda Bux proved notes (Exhs. 39 to 40) made by Inspector Rasul Bux. These notes do not give any compliment to Altaf Ahmed. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that Altaf Ahmad was a public servant and as such he misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,269‑14‑

0. He felt satisfied that documents (Exhs. Nos. 11, 12, 23, 24 and 28) were in the handwriting of the accused and he believed the. evidence of Rasul Bux who was conversant with his handwriting. In appeal it was argued before me, firstly, that no entrust ment of money was proved in this case and, therefore, Altaf Ahmad could not be found guilty. Secondly, sanction in this case was defective and, thirdly, the inference drawn by the learned Judge was wrong. I have held in the connected case of Abdul Rashid in Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1959 who was working with Altaf Ahmed that, due to lack of sanction and mis‑joinder of charges, the order of the learned Sessions Judge must be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant adopted the arguments advanced in the case of Abdul Rashid on the question of sanction and of mis‑joinder of charges. As regards sanction, it was pointed out that the sanction accorded, which is at page 41 of the record, was issued by Mr. Nizamuddin without going into the merits of the case at all. The sanction order has already been quoted at page 2 in this‑ judgment. It shows that the sanction order was not based on a personal and careful consideration by the Chief Officer, Mr. Nizamuddin of the facts of the case. He has given sanction for the prosecution of Altaf Ahmad for misappropriating Rs. 1,276‑14‑0 and details are not given. It is also not mentioned, whether the explanation given by the appellant was considered by him to be correct at all. As regards misjoinder of charges, there are 3 items on which the appellant has been charged. The Robkari show that on 3 different dates, namely, 3‑2‑56, 7‑2‑56 and 19‑4‑56, he mis appropriated three different amounts deposited by different persons. There is no evidence to suggest that all these misap propriations form part of the same transaction. The learned counsel representing the State said that the principle enunciated in Ghulam Mani's case reported in (P L D 1957 Lah. 290) should be accepted in this case also because there was a conspiracy in the mind of the accused to commit the same offence again and again. In my view, this cannot be Accepted for the reason that, if an accused person decides to take to dacoity as a profession and commits 14 dacoities at different places and on different occasions, it cannot be said that all these dacoities are the result of one central idea and are part of the same trans action. In Ghulam Mani's case, it was found that the accused had misappropriated one month's pay and it was merely a repetition of the same offence in respect of the same person and the same amount every month. In this case before us, it cannot be said that there was a repetition of one offence. It may be a repetition of misappropriation but it was in respect of different items and different persons. It is not pos sible to hold that there was a conspiracy in the mind of the accused. Therefore, the offences committed cannot be presumed to be part of the same transaction. This view finds support from the judgment in D. K. Chandra v. The State (A I R 1952 Bom. 177). This Full Bench has discussed all the rulings of the various High Courts of Undivided India before Partition in respect of sections 234, 235 and 236, Cr. P. C., and given the opinion that there would be misjoinder of charges if two items of misappropriation are joined with two items of falsification of accounts. The same facts apply to this case as there are three different items of misappropriation and there are three corresponding offences of falsification. I accordingly hold that the joinder of charges in this case was not legal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The appellant is in jail. He should be released unless required in any other case. K. B. A. Appeal accepted.