' Appellant abovenamed being aggrieved by judgment, dated 6th November, 1980, of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Karachi, in Case No, 68 of 1979, by which he has been convicted under section 409, P. P. C. Read with section 5 (2) of Act H of 1947 and sentenced to suffer R. I. For six months and fine of Rs, 500 and in default to suffer further R. I. For one month, has preferred the above appeal, on the following facts and grounds.
2. The case of the prosecution succinctly put is that on 22nd June, 1978, while the appellant was working as Clerk in the Court of Baldia Maripur Karachi, was entrusted with Rs, 2,000 as security amount by Haji Dost Muhammad for which receipt No, 29 was issued by the appellant to Haji Dost Muhammad, but the appellant did not deposit the same amouht in the Nazarat/State Bank and dishonestly misappropriated the said amount.
3. It is also the case of the prosecution, that on or about 21st January, 1978, the appellant was entrusted with Rs, 150 by convict Talib Hussain and Rs, 100 by convict Muhammad Yousuf as fine imposed upon him by the Court and necessary receipts Nos. 95 and 96 were issued by the appellant but the said amount was also not credited by the appellant in Nazarat/State Bank till 12th December, 1979 and thereby committed temporary misappropriation.
4. When the charge was read over and explained to the appellant he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Prosecution in support of its case examined P. Ws. Haji Dost Muhammad, Abdul Jabbar, Nazeer Hussain, Bashir Ahmed, Raisuddin, Ghulam Mustafa and Fakhruddin.
6. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced by prosecution and statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Made by the appellant in which he admitted acceptance of the amounts and their non-deposits in Treasury, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as hereinbefore mentioned and consequently the appellant has filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the memo. Of appeal.
7. The learned Advocate for the appellant at the outset submitted that in view of the provisions of section 412, Cr. P. C. He was pressing the above appeal in respect of the sentences awarded to the appellant only, as in his opinion the said sentences are harsh, as appellant refunded both these amounts.
8. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant and have gone through the record and proceedings of the learned trial Court as well as impugned judgment.
9. Appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Has fully admitted all the prosecution allegations and did not allege any enmity with P. Ws. In fact he stated, that P. Ws. Have correctly stated the facts. In view of this, I see no reason to disagree with the conclusions and findings of the learned trial Court.
10. The only question, which requires consideration, in view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appeallant, is, whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, sentences awarded to appellant are harsh.
11. It is admitted position, that appellant reimbursed the P. Ws. In question, whose money was involved. It is also admitted position, that offence is, dated 22nd June, 1978 and appellant was convicted on 6th November, 1980 and as such he faced trial for nearly two years. Above appeal was admitted on 8th December, 1980 and appellant was granted bail on the said date and consequently appellant remained in custody for about one month. Keeping in view these facts, ends of justice will be fully met, if the sentence of the appellant is reduced from six months to one already undergone by him, in my opinion.
12. Therefore, while dismissing the above appeal on merits, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to appellant from six months to one already undergone by him and maintain the fine of Rs, 500 imposed on him and in default of payment of fine, appellant shall suffer further R. I. For one month. Appellant is granted two weeks time from today to pay the fine imposed on him, failing which learned trial Court is directed to issue non-bailable warrants for arrest of the appellant and on his arrest to remand him to judicial custody, in order to serve out sentence in lieu of fine.