1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant was serving as Line Officer, Police Line, Nawabshah. In the month of April, 1985 he received amounts of Rs,8,360 and Rs,5,450 for repairs of Government Vehicles Nos. GS-9113 and GS-9108. It was alleged that the appellant did not get the vehicles repaired, and misappropriated the amount. On the said allegation, the appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sukkur. The learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence punishable under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Therefore, he was sentencedto suffer R.I. For one month and fine of Rs,15,000 or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For one month under the impugned judgment, dated 8-8-1998.
2. ' On 28-8-1998 the sentence of the appellant was suspended therefore, he was released on bail.
3. Thereafter, he remained absent in spite of repeated notices. The notice was also issued to the surety. The Process Server has reported by filing an affidavit that the surety of the appellant has died and filed the death certificate. He has further stated that the appellant Zeeshan Hyder has shifted to some unknown place and his whereabouts are not known. In these circumstances, it appears that the attendance of the appellant cannot be procured in near future. The appeal is very old as the incident took place in the year, 1987 hence 19 years have passed after commission of incident; therefore, the appeal is ordered to be heard in absence of the appellant.
4. ' I have heard the A.A.-G. For the State and perused the evidence with his assistance.
5. ' After going through the evidence, I found that the appellant had admitted the receipt of amount involved in the case but took the plea that he paid the said amount to Head Constable Allah Ditta who is dead now. P.W.3 and P.W.6 stated that the amount was received by the appellant for the repairs of the vehicles. The appellant in his statement on oath has also admitted that he had received the said amount but had delivered it to Head Constable Allah Ditta, Incharge Motor Transport. He further stated that he had obtained the receipt which was produced before the Enquiry Officer P.W.B. A question was put to P.W.8 in the cross-examination about the production of said receipt before him but he denied the same. The appellant produced the photostat copy of the said receipt. The same has been denied by the prosecution. The appellant did not lead any evidence to prove his allegation or send the said receipt to handwriting Expert for comparing the signature appearing on the said receipt with the admitted signature of Head Constable Allah Ditta.
6. Admittedly, Head Constable Allah Ditta is dead.
7. ' From the material available on the record I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the case against the Appellant beyond any reasonable doubt; therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant are maintained. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.