These Criminal Appeals Nos. 669172 and 6.74/72 arise from the judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Multan, whereby, he on 8th September, 1972 convicted Zafar Hussain and Hassan Raza, the appellants of Cr. A. No. 669/72 and Saif-ur-Rehman, the appellant of Cr. A. No. 674;/72 under section 409/468, P. P. C. And under section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced them to one year R. I. On each count and a fine of Rs. 1.000 each on one of the three counts and in default thereof to further R. I. For 6 months with the direction that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. The charge against Hassan Raza and Zafar Hussain appellants 'is that they on 5th May, 1971 while posted as Octroi Muharrirs at Chungi No. 14 Multan alongwith Saif-ur---Rehman co-accused forged octroi receipt No. 189 in register No. 82595 and transit pass No. 2.10 in Book No. 2166 and on the basis of forged receipts obtained Rs. 960 from Messrs Karachi General Store, Multan but deposited only 25 paisa towards the Municipal Committee Funds and misappropriated Rs. 959.75, and thereby committed an offence under sec. Tion 409/466/468/471, P.
P. C. And under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. .
2. The charge against Saif-ur-Rehman is that he while posted as Octroi Muharrir at Chungi No. 15 Multan alongwith his co-accused forged the octroi receipt No. 189 in register No. 82595 and transit pass No. 210 in Book No. 2166, and thereby cheated Messrs Karachi General Store, Multan and Municipal Committee, Multan. They charged Rs. 960 on the basis of forged receipt but deposited only 25 paisa in Municipal Funds, as such, misappropriated Rs. 959.75, and thereby committed an offence under section 409/468/471 of the P. P. C. And section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellants denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.
3. To prove its case; the prosecution examined as many as 18 wit--nesses. P. W. 1 Muhammad Habib is a proprietor of Muhammadi Goods Transport Co. Ltd., Karachi. He stated that on 3rd May, 1971, he issued 3. Challans for Truck No. M. Y. 5054. In Challan No. 6004, there were two truck receipts for 80 cases of battery cells and empty gunny bags. In Challan No. 6005 there was only one truck receipt No. 1634 in which 14 maunds of Dar-Chini and black pepper were loaded. In Challan No. 6005,there were 10 truck receipts and the goods carried were 78 maunds consisting of Caustic Soda, empty bottles, etc. He proved copies of those challans which are Exh. P. A., P. A/1, P. B., P. B/1 and Exh. P. C. He further stated that these copies were taken into possession by the police from him vide memo. Exh. P. H. - Abdul Ghafoor is P. W.
2. He is Presi--dent Merchants Association. He stated that on 17th May. 1971, Noor Ahmad P. W. Came to him and showed him two receipts which were issued by Octroi Posts Nos. 15 and 19. He suspected some foul play and contacted Muhammad Siddiq Superintendent of Octroi who examined the original Octroi books which indicated that receipt No. 189 was for Rs. 960 but its duplicate receipt showed merely the amount of Re. 0.25 only.
The original receipt No. 189 showed that the goods imported were 80 maunds of battery cells while on the duplicate it was shown one maund of vege--table. P. W. 3 is Munshi Khan. In his presence Muhammad Habib P. W. Produced copies of the challans Nos. 6004, 6005 and 6006 which were taken into possession by the police vide memo Exh. P. D. P. W. 4 Noor Ahmad stated that on 3rd May, 1971 through Bilty No. 1624 Exh. P. N. They had booked 80 cases of Battery cells from Karachi through Mahmood Goods Transport Co. Ltd. The New Sadaqat Goods Agency sent goods as well as receipt of Rs. 960 paid- as Octroi duty whereupon he made payment to New Sadaqat Agency. P. W.
5 Shahnawaz stated that on 5th May, 1971 Barkat Ali Driver of the truck came to him alongwith truck receipts and asked him to contact proprietor of Karachi General Store to take the delivery of their goods on the payment of Octroi duty. These goods were to be unloaded on the godown of said General Store. At 2.00 p. m. Barkat Ali came at the Adda and the goods were unloaded. The witness stated that he did not pay Rs. 960 as Octroi duty to Shabbir co-accused. P. W. 6 Jamil Murtaza, Chief Officer Municipal Committee lodged the F. I. R. Exh. P. O. Abdul Samad P. W. 7 did not support the prosecution. P. W. 8 Muhammad Siddiq is Superintendent Octroi Posts. He stated that Abdul Ghafooc and Noor Ahmad P. Ws. Came in his office and showed him receipt Exh. P. A. Which was issued by Octroi No. 15. This receipt was for Rs. 960. Since he suspected some foul play, he examined its duplicate and found that only 25 paisa were shown as Octroi duty and instead of Battery Cells, one maund of vegetable was shown therein. P. W. 9 is Muhammad Sharif. He is Octroi Muharrir. He stated that transit pass Exh. P. R. Was issued by Zafar Hussain appellant from Chungi No. 8 and that the luggage did not pass from Chungi No. 8 and the transit pass was never produced before him. P. W. 10 Muhammad stated that transit pass Exh. P. R. Is in the handwriting of Zafar Hussain accused. P. W. 11 Habib Ullah stated that transit pass Exh. P.. R. Was never produced before him. Muhammad Ramzan Shah P. W. 12 stated that on 5th May. 1971, he was working at Chungi No. 8 and that transit pass Exh. P. 4 was not produced before him. P. W. 13 Talib stated that he was on duty on Chungi No. 8 and that the transit pass Exh. P. R. Was not produced before him. P.
W. 14 is Muhammad Afzal, Assistant Superintendent Octrois. He stated that he joined the investigation and produced Book No. 0-2 No. 82595 and the photostat copy of the form Book No. 0- 2, receipt No. 89/82595, copy of the application dated 18th May, 1971 from Markazi Anjuman Tajran, report of the Superintendent Octroi Posts dated 17th May, 1971 and copy of the notice dated 17th May, 1971 before the police. P. W. 15 Mumtaz Hussain Head Constable, recorded the formal F. I. R. Exh.
P. O/1. P. W. 16 Taj Din stated that he was working as Nazool Clerk. On 5th May. 1971, Saif-ur-Rehman appellant was posted at Octroi Post No. 15. Zafar Hussain and Hassan Raza appellants were working on Octroi Post No. 14, on that date and that original receipts Nos. 31 to 36 and 38 to 42 of Book No. 83517 were issued by Hassan Raza accused and are in his hand. P: W. 17 Abdul Khaliq stated that his duty was to enter the transit pass in a register and then hand them over to Muharrir Chungi of the concerned Octroi Post and that Exh. P. R. Was given to him by Muharrir of Octroi Post No. 8. P. W. 18 is Mushtaq Ahmad Khan S. I. He investigated and challaned the case.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove the charges against the appellants. The learned counsel for the State has, however, defended the judgment of the trial Court.
5. After hearing the learned counsel acid going through the record I find that the appellants stand convicted under section 409/468, P. P. C. And section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. As for offence under section 409,.P. P. C. I find that Barkat Ali driver of the truck has not been produced by the prosecution. There is nothing on the record to indicate that Rs. 9W were entrusted to the petitioners/appellants and as such no offence punishable under section 409, P. P. C. Is made out against them. As for offence under section 468, P. P. C. I find that there is no evidence against Saif- ur-Rehman and Hassan Raza appellants. P. W. 91 Muhammad Sharif, P. W. 10 Muhammad Ali, P. W.
16 Taj Din have simply stated that transit pass Exh. P. R. Is in the handwriting of Zafar Hussain appellants. The Investigating Officer has stated that he had taken the specimen signatures of the appellants which were sent for comparison with receipts to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore and the result was in the negative. He further stated that he did not send transit pass Exh. P. R. For comparison with the signatures of the appellants. B In this situation I am convinced that no forgery has been proved against the appellants. As for offence under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, I find that there is nothing on the record to connect the appellants with this charge. It is remarkable that the important wit--ness Bahawal Haq has been given up. Barkat Ali and Noor Alam have not been produced by the prosecution. The report of the handwriting Expert being in negative has not been proved. Muhammad Ali and Taj Din P. Ws. Are not handwriting Experts. The transit pass Exh. P. R. Was not written by Hassan Raza in their presence and as such their state--ment that Exh. P. R. Is in the hand of Hassan Raza is of no significance. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants. They are accordingly acquitted of all the charges. They are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.