1989 PLP 2929 (MLD)

2. F.I.R. Exh. P.N./1 was got registered by Ch. Abdul Malik, P.W.4, with Police Station Sangla Hill on 11-12-1987. The F.I.R. was registered on the basis of complain( Exh.P.N. made by Abdul Malik on 10-12-1987.

3. The prosecution in support of its case produced eight witnesses in all. The Court examined Qasim Ali, Field Assistant as C.W.1. Thereafter, vide its dated 11-11 1757 the prosecution evidence was closed. Muhammad Ramzan, Baildar, P.W.1 was declared hostile and allowed to be cross-examined by the Prosecutor. P.W.2 Muhammad Akram Zafar, Senior Subject Matter Specialist, Agriculture Department, Sheikhupura, checked the store of the appellant and noticed loss of pesticides worth Rs.1,11,491.49. Muhammad Yasin, P.W.3 attested the recovery memo. of certain documents. Abdul Malik E.A.D.A. got the case registered against the appellant, checked the store of the appellant and found tile loss of pesticides initially to the tune of Rs.1,11,491 but on re-checking lie came to the conclusion that some of the pesticides were damaged because of rains, therefore, ultimately, the damage was assessed at Rs.85,940.79. He also deposed that various pesticides were received by the appellant and the same were missing on checking. Abdul Hamid P.W.S stated that he had a shop in front of the store of the appellant and any customer who wanted to buy pesticides he used to direct him to the store of the appellant. Muhammad Hussain, P.W.G also deposed to the same effect. Nazir Ahmad A.S.I. P.W.7 recorded the formal F.I.R. Muhammad Zaman P.W.8 1 Inspector/S.D.P.O. partly investigated the case and challaned the accused. Qasim Ali , Field Assistant, C.W.1 deposed that he was incharge of store at Sangla Hill and on 2-1-1980 he handed over the charge to Bashir Ahmad, appellant, for which a proper charge-report was prepared. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined under section 3-12, Cr.P.C. without oath wherein he accepted having received different types of pesticides on various dates. In answer to a question he further admitted that he had not written any application promising to pay the amount in question in instalments nor he ever wrote seeking extension of time for depositing the said amount. He further stated that the said writings were obtained from him by coercion. He also appeared on oath in his defence and pleaded innocence.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and he had informed the authorities that in his absence an official of the Agriculture Department had taken some pesticides. Contends that the innocence of the appellant can further be proved that he even gave a telegram to the Department stating that because of the recent floods the pesticides in his supervision were got damaged. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.

5. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. As far as the question of appellant's being posted as Field Assistant, Sangla Hill during the year 1981 is concerned, it has neither been challenged nor denied. On the other hand, the statement of C.W.1 fully proves that the appellant was given charge of the said store on 2-1-1980 alter the preparation of the charge report. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellant was incharge of the store from which pesticides worth Rs.85,940.79 were missing: This would also prove that he was entrusted with the Government property which was found missing on checking. As far as the question of shortfall in the pesticides in control of the appellant is concerned, the prosecution has produced Muhammad Akram Zafar and Abdul Malik, E.A.D.A., Sheikhupura, P.Ws. 2 and 4, respectively. Both of them have stated that in their presence the physical checking of the store was conducted and pesticides worth Rs.85,940.79 were found missing. Both the witnesses have been cross-examined at length but the prosecution has not been able to bring on record anything to indicate that they are not truthful witnesses or they had motive to falsely involve the appellant. While going through the statement of Abdul Malik, P.W.-4, I have noticed that lie acted in a most fair and impartial manner. Initially the case was got registered against the appellant on the statement of Abdul Malik for the loss of pesticides worth Rs.1,11,491.49, but later on Abdul Malik P.W. came to the conclusion that there was sonic evidence that some of the pesticides was damaged because of the rains, therefore, the amount was reduced from Rs.1,11,491.49 to Rs.85,940.79. In these circumstances, I hold that the witnesses are truthful and can safely be relied upon. The fairness and impartiality of the prosecution witnesses can safely be accepted from the fact that before getting the case registered against the appellant, the witness gave him an opportunity to deposit the amount in question, to which the appellant agreed and gave it in writing Exh.P.O./1 as well. Subsequently, the appellant wrote another application Exh.P.F. seeking extension in time for the deposit of the said amount. The appellant has admitted in his statement without oath that the said documents bear his signatures, but came up with a plea that the same were obtained by coercion. It is strange to note that all the witnesses were cross-examined at length but not even a single witness was even suggested that the writings were obtained by coercion or any sort of inducement. It has also not been put to any of the witnesses at whose instance the said writings were obtained. For what has been discussed above, I hold that the prosecution evidence is confidence inspiring and can safely be relied upon, specially when corroborated with the applications Exh.P.O. and Exh.P.P. of the appellant which have been proved to have been written by the appellant himself. In these circumstances, I. hold that the prosecution has been able to, prove its case beyond doubt. Therefore, the appeal fails. The appellant shall,) however, be given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. as well. N.H.Q./B-130/L Appeal dismissed.