1991 P Cr (PLP)

Hasnat Ahmad Khan for Appellant. Muhammad Arshad for the State. Date of hearing: 9th April, 1991. A sum of Rs.12,000 was sanctioned for the repairs/construction of wall of the Primary School for Girls in Chak No.59-Janubi, District Sargodha. The amount was entrusted to Muhammad Bashir, who was the Project Manager of the area. Nadir Hussain, Member of the concerned Union Council was appointed incharge of the project. Muhammad Bashir was to hand over the money as and when required by the Project Incharge. He gave Rs.6,000 to Nadir Hussain on his demand. Nadir Hussain deposited that amount in the bank. When the amount was exhausted, Nadir Hussain asked for the remaining amount. Muhammad Bashir instead of paying the whole remaining amount gave him only a sum of Rs.3,

000. Nadir Hussain deposited that also in the bank. As the Project remained incomplete, he demanded the remaining amount of Rs.3000. The other members of the Union Council also joined him in the demand. However, Muhammad Bashir did not hand over the amount. An application was submitted to the Commissioner by Nadir Hussain. The other members of the Union Counsil also supported him. A case under section 409, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was registered against Muhammad Bashir on 9-7-1985. After completion of necessary investigation, the challan was submitted to the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha.

2. Statements of 6 P.Ws. were recorded at the trial. Nadir Hussain, member, Union Council, incharge of the Project appeared as P.W.2. He narrated the facts noted above. His statement in that regard finds corroboration from the statements of Ashraf Masih (P.W.4.), Secretary of the concerned union council, and Muhammad Latif, another member of the union council. Circle Officer of the Anti-Corruption Department, who had investigated the case and submitted challan to the Court, appeared as P.W.1 and gave the account of the investigation.

3. Muhammad Bashir during trial took up the stance that after having passed on a sum of Rs.9,000 in two instalments, i.e. Rs.6,000 and Rs.3,000, he had purchased cement for the project worth Rs.3,000 which was lying with him. According to him, Nadir Hussain did not lift the cement. In the meantime, he was transferred. He, therefore, asked his Secretary to dispose of the cement after which he deposited the amount. The stance of Bashir to the extent of having deposited the sum of Rs.3,000 was not disputed by the prosecution at the trial. Learned trial Judge after coming to conclusion that Muhammad Bashir had committed temporary misappropriation convicted him under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court plus to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default whereof to undergo S.I. for one month. Muhammad Bashir has challenged his conviction through this appeal.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Nadir Hussain (P.W.2) was inimically disposed towards the appellant because of his political differences with his (appellant's) brother Rana Muhammad Ghaus, who was a member of the district council, does not advance the case of the appellant, in any manner, as the appellant did not himself deny, at any stage, that he had not passed on the sum of Rs.3,000 to Nadir Hussain, who had been appointed incharge of the project. In fact, Nadir Hussain did not admit his animosity with Rana Muhammad Ghaus. Although he varied his statement about the application Exh. D.A submitted by him to the Commissioner yet that does not affect the merits of the case against the appellant in any manner. The appellant in support of his stance did not produce any evidence. He failed to produce the receipt of the purchase of the cement. He did not produce the Secretary of his office to whom he had allegedly handed over the cement for disposal. 1n fact, he did not even make statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. to rebut the allegation of misappropriation levelled against him. On being asked, he declined to make such statement. In the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge for the commission of the offence by the appellant does not call for interference. There is no merit in the appeal, and the same is dismissed. S.A./M-2841/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.