1987 PLP 982 (MLD)

P.W.1 Syed Mubarak Hussain Shah, A. S. I. He stated that he recorded the formal F.1 R Exh. P. A. /1 on the receipt of complaint Exh. P. A. P.W.2 Ch. Muhammad Afzal:- He stated that he sent letters Exh.P.B. and Exh.P C. to the S.P. Anti-Corruption. P.W.3 Ahmad Zaman, Development Officer: He stated that he verified audit objection report and checked the receipt Exhs.P.D., P.E. and P.F. and also inspected the spot where no hand-pump was installed. He also visited School building of Chak No.64/WB where no Katcha bricks were found lying on the spot or used in the building. He sent a written report to Ch. Muhammad Afzal P.W.2. In cross-examination he stated that he did not know whether the articles mentioned in the receipts were. purchased but were not used at the spot. He further stated that before the inspection of the spot he had seen the water pump installed there on different occasions which was in that School building. P.W.4 Sana Ullah Secretary Union Council: He stated that he was posted as Secretary in the Union Council. According to the Cash Books the Councillor received Rs.6,500 under Rural Works Programme. In the Stock Register there is an entry of the purchase of two hand pumps. On the direction of Ahmad Zaman P.W.2, he made explanation Exh.P.K. P.W.5 Ch. Dil Muhammad Inspector:- He stated that he prepared the complaint Exh. P. A., partially investigated, the case, took into possession receipts Exhs.P.D., P.E. and P.F., vide memo. Exh. P. N.

5. The appellants when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations. Muhammad Nawaz appellant stated that Ch. Muhammad Afzal Assistant Director Basic Democracies was a relative of Ch. Abdur Rashid M.N.A., Vehari and since in the last elections he had not supported Ch. Abdur Rashid and the next elections were also approaching, Ch. Abdur Rashid had asked Ch. Muhammad Afzal and Ahmad Zaman P.Ws: to involve the appellant. Sultan appellant stated that he had issued receipt Exh.P.F. which is genuine. Nasir Javed, appellant stated that he issued receipts Exh.P.D. and Exh. P.E. of having supplied and installed water pump in the School building. In defence the appellants produced Abdul Hamid, Qamar Ali Jahara and Allah Ditta D.Ws.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as the ingredients of offences under section 468/465, P. P. C. are not proved. As against this, the-learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment.

7. I have gone through the record and have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. I find that the prosecution- has not succeeded in proving the commission of the alleged offences for the following reasons:- (i)???????? So far the allegations of the non-installation of the two water pumps is concerned, I find that the prosecution has produced only one witness namely, Ahmad Zaman. But' he has clearly stated in the cross-examination that when he joined the investi?gation the- water pumps was found installed. He had also admitted P that before his inspection report he had seen the water pump installed there at different occasions. Except this statement there is nothing on the record to prove misappropriation of the amount, as such I am of the opinion that the, prosecution has failed to prove criminal misappropriation. (ii)??????? As far as conviction under section 420, P.P.C. is concerned, ??????????? there is no evidence of cheating on the record. (iii) ????? As far as forgery and the commission of offence under section 465/468, P.P.C. is concerned, the appellants Sultan and Nasir Javed have owned the receipt Exhs.P.D., P.E. and P.F and no forgery has been proved by the prosecution. (iv)?????? As far as an offence under section 5(2)47, P.C.A. is concerned, I ??????????? there is no evidence of misconduct against Muhammad Nawaz ??????????? appellant ?????????

8. For all these reasons, the appeal is accepted, the conviction and sentences are .set aside. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. H.A.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.