1. Appellant Abdul Wahid son of Din Muhammad was tried in case F.I.R. No, 301 of 1993 registered under Section 409, P.P.C. read with Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, at Police Station Ghalib ,Market, Lahore by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore who vide judgment dated 30- 9-2004 convicted the appellant under Section 409, P.P.C. and sentenced him to four years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs, 50,000 or in default whereof to further undergo six months' S. I. He was also convicted under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to three years' R.I.
2. He was further directed to pay Rs, 10,000 as fine or in default whereof to further suffer S. I. for three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in his favour.
3. 2.Calling in question his conviction and sentence the appellant filed the instant appeal.
4. 3.Succinctly the prosecution case as narrated in F.I.R. Exh.P.Q./1 lodged by Khalid Maqbool, Manager, Government Medical Store Depot Gulberg-III, Lahore is that Abdul Wahid appellant was working as Dispenser in the Drug Section at Table No, 1 in the said Government Medical Store and medicines worth lacs of rupees used to remain in his custody and he used to issue medicines on requisition to different Hospitals in the Punjab. On the report made Muhammad Asghar Superintendent, Drug Section and on checking and making inquiry the said Dispenser was found to have misappropriated drugs worth Rs, 85,703 and when asked he could not give satisfactory reply in that regard and present case was registered.
5. 4.After complying with all legal formalities the Investigating Officer submitted challan before the trial Court where prosecution produced seven witnesses to prove the charge against the appellant.
6. Dr. Zahid Maqbool, Manager P.W.1 (complainant) while supporting the prosecution case as set down in the F.I.R. deposed before the trial Court. Muhammad Asghar Bhatti, Drug Superintendent P.W.2 deposed that under the instructions of Dr. Athar, Incharge, he inspected Table No, 1 and found shortage of certain medicines. Syed Muhammad Younis P.W.3 (Account Officer) being authorized officer constituted Inquiry Committee for holding an inquiry into the matter and found certain drug items short. Muhammad Ramzan P.W.4 deposed that he being Bulk Store Keeper in that store used to hand over the medicines to the appellant. Saeed Akhtar Office Superintendent P.W.5 deposed that he conducted stock verification of Table No, 1 which was under the charge of appellant and found certain medicines short. Maqsood Ahmad S.-I. P.W.6 conducted the investigation in this case.
7. Shabbir Gul S.-I. P.W.7 entered formal F.I.R. Exh.P.Q./1.
8. 5.Trial Court also examined the appellant under Section 342, Cr.P.C. While answering to the question, have you anything else to say? The appellant replied as under: "I am innocent. I had not committed any misappropriation of the medicines in question. No one could go out from premises of the said store depot without checking/personal search, conducted by the Security Officer and his staff, therefore, no question of misappropriation could arise.
9. Furthermore without any gate pass not a single medicine could be taken away by any employee of the Medical Store Depot. It is worth-mentioning here that soon after the threatening of Bashir Ahmad, Security Officer, that he would teach me a lesson, I became alert and found some , medicines stolen due to which I complained to the Drug Superintendent but despite that I have been falsely involved in this case in spite of making a complaint by me against the said Bashir Ahmed, who was the actual culprit."
10. 6.After appraisal of evidence available on record, the trial Court vide judgment, dated 30-9-2004 convicted and sentenced the appellant as narrated above.
11. 7.With the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties I have minutely gone through the record of this case. The appellant took over the charge as Dispenser on 14-9-1992. At that time there were 38 items of medicines which were entrusted to him. The charge report was prepared in the presence of Dr. Zahid Maqbool, Manager, Government Medical Store Depot P.W.1 by the appellant after physical verification. Later on, on 11.8.1993 during the surprise checking by Muhammad Asghar Bhatti, Drug Superintendent P.W.2 some shortage of medicines of worth Rs, 85,703.85 was found. He reported the matter on 16-8-1993 to the concerned authorities, an Inquiry Committee was constituted and upon the recommendation of the Committee present case was registered.
12. On the other hand the evidence available on record reveals that there was strict security at the store. The security staff used to physically check the clerical staff and packers while going out of the premises and the clerical staff includes Dispensers/Store Keepers as well. Thus, in such-like situation there was no possibility for the appellant to take medicines out of the store.
13. It is also apparent from the record that the table allocated to the appellant was lying in a big hall alongwith other tables and the hall was divided into three portions by affixing racks but admittedly one could go from one table to another table by scaling over the racks. Admittedly, during the days of occurrence it was the practice in the store that table incharge used to hand over the keys of his sub-section to the Drug Superintendent (Asghar Bhatti) at the closing hours and the said Superintendent further used to deliver the keys to the Security Officer. This practice means that after closing hours the appellant was no more custodian of the medicines at the store and everything was left at the mercy of the Security Officer. It is also apparent from the record that in case of emergency, with the permission of Committee concerned the authorized officer could take out the medicines for onward transmission to the hospitals. Similarly Dr. Zahid Maqbool P.W.1 had admitted that many months prior to the occurrence the appellant had moved an application about the insecurity of medicines but no action was taken in that regard and the reply conveyed to the appellant was that earlier system had to continue and those who felt themselves insecure could get themselves transferred. In the light of said prevailing practice at the store it would be unfair and unjust to say that the appellant was the sole custodian of the medicines at Table No, I and that it was the appellant who had misappropriated the said medicines. In these circumstances, I am persuaded to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant.
14. Accordingly, the instant appeal is accepted, conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he stands acquitted of charge. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any case.