1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of an order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. The petitioner was a Cashier at the Government of Pakistan Press, Dacca. He was prosecuted for having withdrawn a sum of Rs. 300 from the Government Provident Fund Account of P. W. 1 Kazi Shamsul Awal, a Lower Division Clerk at the said Press, but instead of having paid the amount to P.
3. W. 1., he misappropriated it.
4. The defence of the petitioner was that he had paid the amount to the Manager of the said Press and P. W. 1 received it from the Manager before P. W. 1 went on leave.
5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution has failed to prove dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner.
6. It appears that the withdrawal of the aforesaid amount from the Provident Fund Account of P. W. 1 was sanctioned by the Manager and in due course the petitioner encashed the bill for the amount and made an entry in the cash book showing receipt of the money by him. He, however, made a false entry on the payment side .Of the cash book showing disbursement of the amount. P. W. 1, however, was never paid the money, and this is evident by the fact that there is no acknowledgment by him on Exh. 3, namely, the bill which had been encashed by the petitioner. The Manager of the said Press Mr. Huq duly proved the said bill Exh. 3 and he also proved the entry m - the cash book showing receipt of the money as well as the entry along with the initial of the petitioner showing payment of the money. The witness also proved a letter Exh. 5 written by P. W. 1 addressed to the Manager which stated that P. W. 1 had not received the money and that the money should be sent to his home address. P. W. 1 has categorically stated that he never received the money.
7. On a consideration of the evidence the learned Single Judge of the High Court agreed with the learned Special Judge who tried the case, that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the petitioner and he has, therefore, been rightly convicted and sentenced.
8. The prosecution having succeeded in proving that the petitioner withdrew the money, but never paid it to P. W. 1 although the former made an entry showing disbursement of the money in the cash book, it was a legitimate inference that the petitioner dishonestly misappropriated the money.
9. We accordingly find no substance in the petition and it is dismissed.