Tariq Shamim, J.--Muhammad Din appellant, alongwith one Faisal. Abbas, acquitted co-accused, was tried by the learned Judge, Accountability Court No. III, Lahore in A.C. Reference No. 32 of 2003 under Section 18(g) read with Section 24(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for committing the offence of corruption and corrupt practices falling within the ambit of Section 10 read with Section 9 of NAO, 1999 and vide judgment, dated 6-10-2005 the said learned Judge Accountability Court, convicted the appellant under Section 10(a) read with Section 9(a)(iv) of NAO, 1999 read with its schedule and sentenced him to undergo 10 years' R.I. with a fine of rupees seven crore and in default of payment of fine to undergo 2-1/2 years' R.I. and also rendering him disqualified in terms of Section 15(a) and (b) for ten years to be reckoned from the date he is released after serving the sentence extending him the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Feeling aggrieved of the above said conviction and sentences the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of 2005 which is being disposed of through this judgment.
3. The brief facts of the case are that A.C. Reference No. 32 was filed against the appellant and two others namely Faisal Abbas, acquitted co-accused, and one Ejaz Ahmad Awan, proclaimed offender for the commission of offences under Section 9(a), (iii), (iv) and (vi) read with Section 10 of NAO, 1999 alleging therein that Ejaz Ahmad Awan, proclaimed offender in the capacity of General Manager of the Services Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd. (SCCCI-) in connivance with its Chairman, Zulfiqar Ahmad Awan (father of Faisal Abbas acquitted co-accused) alongwith Faisal Abbas and Muhammad Din appellant misappropriated and embezzled Rs. 1,50,00,000 (Rs.1.5 crore) out of the funds of the above said Credit Corporation with a false intention to purchase 800 Kanals land in village Juliana Tehsil and District Lahore through the appellant and the acquitted co- accused. It is specifically alleged by the prosecution that on 8-3-1990, Rs. 1 crore were withdrawn from the investment account of SCCCL by the appellant and the acquitted co-accused with the help of Zulfiqar Ahmad Awan, Chairman and Ejaz Ahmad Awan proclaimed offender. It is further alleged that on 25-5-1991 again the appellant and his co-accused were given Rs.50 lacs through cash debit voucher from the funds of the Corporation, for purchase of land in village Juliana and the appellant alongwith his acquitted co-accused after withdrawing the above said amounts misappropriated the same as no land was purchased.
4. The prosecution examined 4 witnesses in all. Iftikhar Ahmad complainant appeared as P.W.I, Raza Haider appeared as P.W.2 who produced documents i.e. the two Cash Debit Vouchers and two Cash Books both dated 7-3-1990 and 25-5-1991 which were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide Exh.P.W.2/1, Humayun Waheed Manager of the Main Branch of the defunct Corporation appeared as P.W.3, who provided eye-witness account and Muhammad Abbas Investigating Officer appeared as P.W.4.
5. At the conclusion of the trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant instead of arguing the appeal on merits, at the very outset did not challenge the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant through the impugned judgment while conceding the same has prayed for reduction in sentences in view of the oldage of the appellant who is more than 70 years of age and is suffering from serious heart ailment.
7. Rana Naeem Sarwar, Special Prosecutor NAB while opposing the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant contended that during the course of investigation it transpired that the appellant, Faisal Abbas and Ejaz Ahmed Awan were the only accused and accordingly reference had been prepared against all three of them; that even if it is believed that the appellant was a Munshi, he was expected to be more conscious and circumscript; that the prosecution in question generated a criminal liability by all descriptions and that the oldage of the appellant by itself was not a mitigating circumstance.
8. We have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
9. It has been noticed that the appellant is neither named in the complaint nor the factum of delivery of money to the appellant has been proved through the deposition of any witness. In the overall senario the version of the appellant that he was a petty employee in the Corporation and that his thumb-impression and signatures had been procured under a false impression appears to be quite probable as the reference itself mentions that the appellant was a Munshi in the Corporation. An amount of Rs.62,00,000 as per the prosecution's own showing stands recovered thus, reducing the size of embezzled amount drastically. Prosecution witness Hamayun Farid (P.W.3) cannot be termed as a credible and trustworthy witness as he himself was an accused in the case. Co-accused of the appellant namely Faisal Abbas has been acquitted by the learned trial Court on the same evidence. Further the appellant is above 70 years of age who remained on bail during the trial on medical ground. Thus, keeping in view the attending circumstances and the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant while conceding the conviction of the appellant has prayed for reduction in the sentence awarded to him by the learned Accountability Court, the sentence of 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.7 crore appears to be highly disproportionate to the alleged embezzled amount. Therefore, while upholding the conviction of the appellant we feel inclined to reduce his sentence which is accordingly reduced from 10 years' R.I. to 5 years' R.I.
The imposition of fine is also reduced from Rs.7,00,00,000 (Rs. seven crore) to Rs. 1,50,00,000 (one crore and fifty Lacs) or in default to further undergo 2-1/2 years' R.I. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is also extended to him.
10.With the above modification in the sentence the appeal stands disposed of.