' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, whereby he on 5-2-1979 convicted Ghulam Hazoor, appellant under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 10,000 in default whereof to further rigorous imprisonment for 14 yeaRs,
2. The appellant was in charge of Sector No,2 for the construction of roads from Pasrur to Khanpur and was entrusted with the duty of marking attendance of laborers and distribution of rations to them. The charge against him was that he dishonestly by way of showing much more attendance of the laborers saved lot of rations which he criminally misappropriated. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Safdar All (P.W.2), the complainant supported the allegations against appellant. Abdul Ghani (P.W.3), Rashid Ahmad (P.W.4), Abdul Hameed (P.W.6) and Manzoor Ahmad (P.W.7) deposed about the hours they worked as laboureRs, Muhammad Yaqoob Khan (P.W.1) having audited the account gave shortage report Exh. P.A.
Muhammad Sherif, Draftsman stated about the price of eatable oil. Ramzan (P.W.5) and Muhammad Rafiq (P.W.8) made statements to the effect that the wheat was got removed by the appellant. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea that the foodstuff allegedly misappropriated was in fact lying in another store at village Lappewali which too was under his control and as such there was no misappropriation. Mubarak Ahmad (D.W.2) supported the plea raised by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since there were two stores under the control of the appellant, out of which only one was checked and the other store at Lappewali was not checked where in fact the foodstuff allegedly misappropriated by the appellant was kept, therefore, no case of criminal misappropriation is made out against the appellant. Conversely, learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties with care and have not been able to persuade myself to agree with learned counsel for the appellant. I find that there is ample oral and documentary evidence on record to prove the commission of criminal misappropriation of the foodstuff by the appellant. The shortage from the store which was checked by the authorities is undisputed. His plea is that the foodstuff was kept by him in store at Lappewali which too was under his control. The plea raised by the appellant at the time of trial appears to be afterthought. He did not raise this plea at the time when the store was checked by the authorities.
He did not state so during the investigation. Had the foodstuff been kept in the store Lappewali then in the ordinary course of events he should have brought this fact to the notice of concerned authorities and the Investigating OfficeRs, He could have taken authorities to that store and shown the foodstuff lying there. The trial Court has given sound and cogent reasons in paragraph II of its judgment for the rejection of the plea of the appellant. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan (P.W.1), Safdar Ali (P.W.2), Raja Muhammad Ayyub khan (P.W.3) and the other prosecution witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination. Learned counsel has failed to point out any material contradiction/discrepancy in their statements. They had no enmity to involve the appellant falsely.
The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut prosecution case and its evidence. For all these reasons I am convinced that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The trial Court justifiably recorded conviction and awarded proper sentence to the appellant.
6. For what has been stated above there being no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed.