' MUHAMMAD /MAL ZULLAH J.-This petition for leave to appeal has called in question the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offences under section 420, P. P. C. And section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Learned counsel tried to show that the findings of fact which are the basis of conviction are wrong. After hearing him on this aspect, we did not find any legal infirmity in concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below.
' Learned counsel also pointed out what he considered as a legal defect in the trial. There were two similar instances of misappropriation and cheating within a span of a fortnight which were combined in one trial. Learned counsel argued that there should have been two separate trials.
There is no force in this argument firstly because it being a question of procedure should have been pressed to its logical end before the lower forums, and second, the evidence regarding the second incident was not taken into account for convicting the petitioner on one count only. The conviction/sentence now impugned before us, it is conceded, is only on one count. The petitioner has not suffered any prejudice. And lastly learned counsel could not advance the argument by making reference to the law in question. His mere statement could not be accepted as sufficient to upheld the plea.
4. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.