1984 P Cr (PLP)

The prosecution case he briefly stated as under: -- The appellant, who was a cashier in People's Municipal Committee, Dadu received Rs. 230 as collection of house tax from Tax Clerk Ali Muhammad, on 30th April, 1973 and he prepared challan in that amount on that date in his own handwriting, but instead of indicating the whole amount in the cash book, he mentioned only Rs. 131 being Rs. 110 as house-tax and Rs. 21 as Surcharge and did not account for the sum of Rs. 100, which was converted to his own use dishonestly by the appellant till 11th April, 1974 when on audit inspection of the Municipal Committee account the shortage was detected and the appellant thereupon deposited the amount of Rs. 100 on 11th April, 1974 under his own hand in the National Bank of Pakistan in the Municipal account. Octroi clerk Qurban Ali, therefore, made an application to the Circle Officer, A. C. E. Dadu, on 13th April, 1974. On this application an enquiry was made by the then Circle Officer A. C. E., who obtained orders from the Director Anti-Corruption Sind, Karachi for registration of the case and in consequence of that his Successor Circle Officer Abdul Razak registered the F. I. R. on 9th July, 1975 and verified the statements of Qurban Ali, Muhammad Hussain, Ali Muhammad and Umardraz recorded by his predecessor. The cash book and other documents had already been secured by his predecessor. He after completing the investigation, obtained sanction for prosecution of the appellant and sent him up for trial before the Court. The appellant on the other hand admitted being cashier in the Office of the Municipal Committee Dadu, in 1973 and 1974, but he denied if he was entrusted with Rs. 231 by Ali Muhammad clerk. He admitted that he received Rs. 131, which he entered in the cash book. As regards the later deposit of Rs. 100 by him on 11th April, 1974 he explained that this was done not by him, but by Ali Muhammad, though concerned documents were signed by him. He further stated, that Assistants Jamal and Muhammad Pariyal used to accept moneys and prepare challans and due to oversight and rush of work such omission took place. He did not lead any defence. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it, convicted and sentenced the appellant abovenamed as herein before mentioned and consequently the appellant has filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the memo. of appeal. The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted as under:- (a) That there was delay of nearly 2 years in lodging of F. I. R., which delay has not been satisfactorily explained. (b) That according to P. W. 2 Ali Muhammad, the cashier the alleged short deposit was made good on 11th April, 1974 by the Accountant and not by the appellant and the appellant has alleged enmity against P. W. Qurban Ali and as such no reliance can be placed on the prosecution case without independent corroboration, which is not at all available in the present case. The learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand sub mitted that he was fully supporting the impugned judgment, for the cogent reasons given by the learned trial Court, in the said judgment. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R & P of the learned trial Court as well as impugned judgment. There was admittedly delay of 2 years in lodging of F. I. R., in spite of the fact that audit takes place every year and accounts are checked by various officers daily. Appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. has denied receipt of Rs. 231, as alleged by P. W. 2 Ali Muhammad as deposit of Rs. 100 on 11th April, 1974. In addition to this, appellant has alleged enmity against P. W. 2 Ali Muhammad and P. W. Qurban Ali and substantiated this, by cross-examination of these witnesses. In view of this, delay in lodging of F. I. R. assumes importance and the explanation of the appellant under section 342, Cr. P. C. creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, about deliberate attempt on the part of appellant to misappropriate the alleged amount of Rs. 100, as alleged by prosecution, in my opinion. Therefore I allow the above appeal and set aside conviction of the appellant and sentences awarded to him by impugned judgment and acquit him by giving him benefit of doubt and discharge the bail bonds executed by appellant to the above appeal. M. Y. H. Appeal accepted.