' S. A. NUSRAT, J.-This Acquittal Appeal calls in question the judgment of the learned Special Judge- cum-Enquiry Officer, dated 17th May, 1975. The brief facts, as are relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are as under :-
2. The respondent lqbal Hussain was posted as Secretary Town Committee Halla, District Hyderabad, during the year 1963-64. According to the prosecution the respondent came to have domain over Rs, 21, 023. 23 recovered in the account of the Town Committee on account of certain taxes between 10th July, 1973 to 15th June 1974. The said amount was alleged to have been misappropriated by the respondent and, in the circumstances, he was challenged in the Court of learned Special Judge-cum-Enquiry Officer and was charged for the commission of offence punishable under section 409, P. P. C. And section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947. The defalcations in question were brought to light during the course of audit conducted by P, W, Hyder, The amount of Rs_ 21,023.23 comprised of 35 items, pertaining to the tars, permanent advance drawn by the accused, expenditure on petrol and amount drawn for crediting in Government treasury. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, none of whom were the persons who had paid certain amounts on account of taxes, etc. The accused also examined two witnesses in defense, one of whom was, D. W. Aijaz Hussain, the then Chairman of the Town Committee. The allegation against the accused was that the amount of 31 items was not entered in the Cash Book although relevant entries appeared in the Dexand Register. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Specal Judge found that counterfoils in respect of several receipts were missing. The prosecution's own witness Shah Muhammad P. W. 11, who had also acted as Chairman of the Committee, admitted that relevant Account Books were written by the Senior Clerk Muhammad Soomar who had resigned and absconded after the matter was reported and investigation started. The statement of Muhammad Soomar was recorded by the Police and his name was mentioned in the list of the witnesses but the prosecution did not examine him because his whereabouts were said to be unknown. P. W. Hyder gave the detailed account with regard to the nature of accounts maintained at Halla Town Committee. He stated that the Demand and Collection Register was not signed by any authority on any page and there appeared no initials of the scribe anywhere. The entries in the Cash Books were continued including the period of holidays. Cash Book No, 44 was also not signed by any one on the receipt side and was not verified by the Chairman. P. W. Aijaz Hussain, the then Chairman of the Halla Town Committee, stated on oath that certain payments were also made to the staff and contractors at the time when there was no bank at Halla and a separate Cash Book was maintained for that purpose. His statement was supported by Shah Muhammad P. W.
11. Who stated that sometime staff used to be paid salaries from the cash by the accused and sometime by Muhammad Soomar. The learned Special Judge carefully discussed the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and concluded by holding that the case of the prosecution was not free from reasonable doubt and, in the circumstances, the accused was given the benefit of the same and acquitted.
3. We have gone through the evidence and have noted the observations of the learned Special Judge that the accounts books produced by the prosecution were maintained in such a manner that no reliance could be placsed on the same. The West Pakistan Union Councils Account Rules, 1950 lays down elaborate procedure for the maintenance of account of the Union Councils which included the Town Committee in question. Rule 16 lay down that all the entries in the Cash Book are to be checked by the Chairman item by item with reference to receipts and vouchers and attested in token thereof. The Chairman or any person authorized by him is to sign the Cash Book and the overall responsibility, however, continues to be that of the Chairman. From the evidence it is clear that the Accounts Books were not maintained in accordance with the above-mentioned Rules and the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the respondent leaving no room for doubt. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the findings of the learned Special! Judge.
4. Mr. A. R. Qureshi, learned counsel for the State, was unable to controvert the findings of the leearnd Special Judge and had to concede that, in the circumstances, benefits of doubt was rightly given to the respondent.
5. For the foregoing reasons we find no substance in this appeal which is dismissed.