1989 P Cr (PLP)

Asif Chughtai for the State. Date of hearing: 26th October, 1988. Muhammad Ramzan, Cashier in Police Office of District Education Officer, Mianwali, was tried by Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Mianwali, for offences under section 409/468, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned trial Court vide his judgment dated 11‑6‑1988, convicted him under section 409, P.P.C. and sentenced him to four years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.25,000 or in default thereof one year's R.1. It was also ordered that out of the fine, if realized Rs.15,002.33 be paid to the District Education Officer, Mianwali, to be paid to the persons entitled to the said amount. The appellant was also convicted under section 468, P.P.C. and sentenced to two years' R.I. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant has been given the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C.

2. The allegations in brief are that on 23‑7‑1986 the appellant submitted a note Exh.P.A. for permission to draw Rs.3,445 from the Scout fund to meet the expenses of transportation of jute tats. The payment was received by him on 4‑9 1986. He also submitted a bill for Rs.5,842.33 for the repair of a machine, which was passed by the District Accounts Officer on 21‑10‑1986, and he received the money on 22‑10‑1986. One Abdul Rehman applied for the non‑refundable advance against his G.P. Fund, which was sanctioned on 11‑11‑1986 which the, appellant did not pay to Abdul Rehman, though in the register it was shown to have been disbursed. At that time one Shuja‑ud‑Din was working as District Education Officer, and in the cash‑book his signatures also appeared showing the amount having been disbursed. Said Shuja‑ud‑Din retired on 15‑12‑1986 and one Aftab Ahmad took over the charge. He received the complaints regarding the misappropriation of the amounts, therefore, on his complaint Exh.P.D. formal F.I.R. Exh.P.G. was recorded by Ch. Muhammad Ashiq P.W.9, who partly investigated the case. Thereafter, the investigation was finalized by Farooq Ahmad Bhatti, P.W.7, who challaned the accused.

3. The prosecution in support of its case has produced nine witnesses in all. Allah Dad, P.W.1 has stated that he took over the charge of Cashier on 13‑1‑1987 from the appellant. Umar Hayat Khan, P.W.2 has stated that on 23‑7‑1986 he was Incharge of Scout Fund, out of which he paid Rs.3,445 to the appellant on the orders of Mr. Shaja‑ud‑Din, D.E.O. Muhammad Iqbal, P.W.3 has stated that on 30‑10‑1986 he prepared the G.P. fund bill of one Abdul Rehman P.W. for an amount of Rs.10,

725. Abdul Rehman P.W. 4 has stated that he was‑a teacher in the Education Department and applied for sanction of advance against his G.P. Fund, which was sanctioned; thereafter, the appellant on demand paid him Rs.5,000 only on 8‑2‑1987; the remaining amount was never paid to him. Win Aftab Ahmad, P.W.5, D.E.O., on 24‑2‑1987 got the case registered against the appellant. Muhammad Sabir, Superintendent District Accounts Office P.W.6 passed a bill ?or Rs.3,435 for the transportation of jute tats; similarly, he passed another bill of Rs.5,842.30 on 21‑10‑1986 for the repair of a machine; and another bill of Rs.10,725 of Abdul Rehman P.W. on 22‑11‑1986. Farooq Ahmad Bhatti, C.O./A.C.E. P.W.7 partly investigated the case and arrested the accused and submitted the challan. Sadar Din, Superintendent. Office of D.E.O., P.W.8 has stated that the appellant had received Rs.10,725 as G.P. Fund advance for Abdul Rehman P.W., from the Bank said Abdul Rehman visited his office many time for the payment; ultimately, the appellant paid Rs.5,000 to Abdul Rehman. Ch, Muhammad Ashiq, P.W.9 also partly investigated the case.

4. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He has denied the entire prosecution allegation, and stated that the amounts in question were drawn by him but the same were paid to one Shuaja‑ud‑Din, District Education Officer, who retired on 15‑12‑1986 and misappropriated the money. The appellant however, did not produce any defence evidence.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant has not been proved at all. Submits that the copies of the cash‑book clearly indicate that the amounts in question were disbursed under the signatures of Shuja‑‑ud‑Din, the then. District Education Officer, therefore, involvement of the appellant is highly doubtful. Submits that the appellant was not even a disbursing officer, therefore, no responsibility can be fixed on him. Contends that the appellant has been convicted for an offence under section 468, P.P.C. for having forged the cash register, yet the learned trial Court has relied upon the same while convicting him under section 409, P.P.C. The learned counsel for the State has controverted the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant.

6. I have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the evidence with their assistance. As far as the amounts in question are concerned, it is accepted by the appellant that the same were drawn and received by him. His contention is that he paid the amounts in question to one Shaja‑ud‑Din, D.E.O., who in return, misappropriated the same. Since it is admitted by the appellant that he drew and received the amounts from the bank, therefore, no finding with regard to this aspect is required to be given by the Court. The only point to be determined is, whether the amount in question was misappropriated by the appellant or he handed over the same to the then District Education Officer. In this respect the statement of P.W.4 Abdul Rehman is of utmost importance. According to him statement, the appellant made him a part payment of Rs.5,000 of his G.P. Fund on 8‑2‑1987. It is the admitted case of both the sides that Shaja‑ud‑Din, the then District Education Officer retired from service on 15‑12‑1986. If that be so, then A the contention of the appellant is false that he had already paid the amount to the District Education Officer, because it is in evidence that he made a part payment to the P.W. much after the retirement of the said officer. Going through the cash register, it is apparent that there are signatures of the then D.E.O. with regard to the payment of the entire amount. This would clearly indicate that the register has been forged and prepared after the retirement of the said D.E.O. The statement of Abdul Rehman P.W.4 is fully corroborated by the statement of Sadar Din, Superintendent P.W.8. According to him, the appellant paid Rs.5,000 to Abdul Rehman sometime in April or May, 1986, against an advance from G.P. Fund which appellant had received much earlier. The witnesses have been cross‑ I, examined at length but there is nothing on the record to indicate that they are deposing falsely or have any ill‑will against the appellant. The defence taken up by the appellant is obviously an afterthought, because the same has not been put to any of the witnesses. As a matter of fact, the trend of cross‑examination indicates that the appellant's case at that stage was that he had nothing to do with the amount in question and had handed over the entire amount to the then District Education Officer. Strangely enough even in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C, he was specifically asked that he made the payment of Rs.5,000 to Abdul Rehman on 8‑2‑1987, and his reply was that it was paid by Shuja‑ud‑Din the then DEO, but, according to the evidence, said Shuja‑ud‑Din retired from service on 15‑12‑1986. In these circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has been able W prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. It is also held that the witnesses are confidence inspiring and can safely be relied upon. For the reasons discussed above, I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. SA./M‑1029/L Appeal dismissed.