' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Appellant was tried by the learned Accountability Court No,5 Lahore constituted under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 in Reference No,27/2002 and vide its judgment dated 10-7-2003, he was convicted under section 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and sentenced to undergo RI for three years with a fine of Rs,50,00,000 in default whereof to further undergo RI for one year. He was extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution case, as reflected in the charge framed against the appellant, reads as under:-- ' "Firstly in 1996-97 while you posted as Food Grain Supervisor at P.R. Center, Mandi Sadiq Gunj, District Bahawalnagar showed distribution of 2386 gunny bags worth Rs,1,07,370 to local land lords and commission agents. The same had factually been not distributed. The distribution was shown in the name of fictitious persons.
' Secondly. You while posted as Food Grain Supervisor in 1999-2000 at P.R. Center Chak No,192-6-R District Bahawalpur distributed 9297 gunny bags worth Rs,3,47,335/92 to local 'wheat growers without any security. The same were not returned to the Government as required.
' You in this way being a holder of public office by corrupt, dishonest and fraudulent means obtained for yourself pecuniary advantages of Rs,4,54,705/92 with a corresponding loss to the Government. You as such committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices under section 9(a) (iii)(iv) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 punishable under section 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999."
' In support of the afore-referred charge, the prosecution examined following eight witnesses:---
(i) Malik Zia Ahmad ex-DFC.
(ii) Rana Zahid Sharif, ex-DDF.
(iii) Munir Ahmad, ex-AFC.
(iv) Maqsood Ahmad, Record Keeper. DFC Office.
(v) Muhammad Irfan Ellahi, ex-DDF.
(vi) Ch.Nisar Javed Basra, ex-DDF.
(vii) Amjad Bashir, Special Judicial Magistrate.
(viii)Bashir Ahmad, Cricle Officer, ACE.
' The documentary evidence produced by the prosecution was Exh.PA, Exh . PB , Exh . PC , Exh.PD, Exh .
PE , Exh,PF , Exh. PG, Exh. PH, Exh. PJ , Exh. PK/1-9, Exh. PL, Exh . PM , /1-2 Exh.PN, Exh.P0 and Exit PP.
3. The appellant, when, examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution story in answer to query as to why the case was against him. He replied as under:-- ' "In fact the Government issued instructions to send the cases of officials against whom recoveries were due. The complainant took me as scapegoat in order to save the members of his lobby against whom much bigger recoveries were due. The P.Ws. Have also deposed falsely."
' The appellant produced three witnesses in defence, namely, Muhammad Ashraf Bajwa, Commission Agent (D.W.1). Riaz Ahmad (D.W.2) and Talat Mehmood Commissioner Agent (D,W.3).
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submitted as under:--
(i) That the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant.
(ii) That the prosecution has mainly relied on the orders passed in the departmental proceedings against the appellant which have little evidentiary value in a criminal trial.
(iii) That the appellant has already suffered on account of the allegations levelled i.e, he was proceeded against departmentally, he was compulsorily retired in 1999 and the alleged misappropriation was directed to be recovered through his pension and gratuity. He in the alternative has prayed that the petitioner is in the custody for the last more than two years and if this Court is not inclined to allow this appeal, it may reduce the sentence and remit the fine as well.
' After arguing the case at some length learned counsel submitted that the appellant would not press the appeal if his sentence A of imprisonment is reduced to what he has already undergone and the sentence of fine is also reduced.
5. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General NAB submitted that the prosecution case was proved beyond doubt; that the case is not only based on the documentary evidence in the shape of finding of guilt in the departmental inquiry but the same are corroborated by the oral evidence.
The departmental officials, who appeared, deposed against the appellant and proved the criminal transaction. He however in all fairness, submitted that since the appellant has undergone a substantial part of sentence and the sentence of the fine does not correspond to the alleged misappropriation, the NAB would have no objection if the sentence of imprisonment is B reduced to what he has already undergone and the sentence of fine to an extent which this Court deems proper.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence available on record.
7. The prosecution case is based on the statements of departmental officials who had carried out the departmental inquiry, the material collected during investigation and the documentary evidence, the inspection at the relevant time or investigated the case. At no stage, the appellant attributed any enmity or mala fides to the witnesses produced. The findings in the departmental inquiry may not, by itself, be sufficient in a criminal trial. But on the charges which have nexus with the charges in the departmental inquiry, the finding given have corroborative value. Considered along with oral evidence led and the documentary evidence, referred to above, we, are of the view that the prosecution case stands proved beyond reasonable doubt to sustain conviction A detailed discussion is not called for as appellant's learned counsel has not chosen to challenge conviction.
In this view of the matter, the appeal, in so far as it impugns conviction, has no merit. Coming to the question of sentence, we note that the appellant has undergone sufficient period of sentence and if remissions are counted, major part of his sentence of imprisonment. Be that as it may, while dismissing the appeal. We are inclined to reduce the sentence to what he has already undergone.
Admittedly, the allegedly misappropriated amount is less than rupees five lac and through an order passed in the departmental inquiry, the said amount was directed to be recovered from appellant's gratuity and pension. In the afore-referred circumstances, the sentence of fine of Rs,50,00,000 was rather harsh. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has taken a fair stand, we therefore, keeping in view the circumstances alluded to above, reduce the sentence of fine to Rs, 1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) in default whereof he shall suffer undergo S.I. For three months.