1. ' Appellant above-named, being aggrieved by judgment, dated 27th February, 1978 of the learned Special Judge-cum-Inquiry Officer Anti-Corruption, Hyderabad, in Special Case No, 88/73, by which appellant has been convicted under sections 409 and 477-A, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, II of 1947 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs, 4,000 and default undergo further R. I. For 1 year and a fine of Rs, 1,000 or in default to undergo R. I. For 2 months on each account, has preferred the above appeal on the following facts and grounds :- ' The prosecution case in brief is as under :- ' The appellant was working as Tapedar Tapo Makhiro and in that capacity he collected land assessm ent of Rs, 2,000 from Khatedar Mir Muhammed on 25th November, 1965 and Rs, 1,000 each from Mst. Dilnaz and Mst. Jamal on 9th February, 1966 and prepared two challans which were numbered as 4, dated 26th November, 1965 in the sum of Rs, 2,000 and 6, dated 9th February, 1966 also in the sum of Rs, 2,000 and also made entries of these amount in the roznamcha to show, that they have been credited with the said challan numbers in the Sub-treasury, Umerkot, but actually he did not credit the said amount and further on these challans put false numbers and bogus signatures of the sub-treasurer and Sub-Treasury Officer and kept their copies on his record. The fact of the dishonest misappropriation and false accounts was dedected by Supervising Tapean Abdul Habib of that beat during the closing of the 'Akhri Sal' accounts and he filed his report, dated 7th September, 1966 with mukhtiarkar Muhammad Bachal of Umberkot, after it was found on verification with Treasury record that these amounts had not been deposited but misappropriated.
2. The mukhtiarkar, thereafter, sent his report to Deputy Collector, Naravalley, by his letter dated 12th September, 1966 with copy to Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar. The A. C. Naravalley eventually reported to the Anti-Corruption Police on the basis of the report of mukhtiarkar and S. I. P. Syed Zafar Hassan took up the investigation after getting the crime registered on the basis of complaint of the mukhtiarkar. He examined tnukhtiarkar Muhammad Bachal and S. T. Abdul Habib, produced before him the false challans Nos. 4 and 6 and receipt book and roznamcha. On 7th July, 1967 he examined Muhammad Siddiq, Abdullah Khan and Muhammad Akber. The latter produced Taluka Form No, 8-A, Form 4, Treasury roznamcha and challan books. He also secured other receipts of land assessm ent issued by the appellant. The appellant absconded after having been suspended by the Department. Circle Officer Habibur Rehman got the specimen writing of the appellant attested before a Magistrate and sent them alongwith questioned documents to the Handwriting Expert and his opinion, was received later on by Inspector Abdul Shafi, who also obtained sanction for prosecution of the appellant from D. C. Tharparkar. He completed investigation and submitted the challan of this case in trial Court against the appellant.
3. ' The appellant on the other hand has admitted the prosecution allegations as to his being a public servant and, as such, entrusted with the amount of Rs, 4,000 having been colleected by him as land assessm ent from the abovenamed Khatedars, but denied if he prepared the false challans and made false entries in his roznamcha and dishonestly misappropriated the amount. He insisted that he had deposited the amount of both the challans through S. T. Abdul Habib and Head Munshi Muhammad Siddiq with Sub-treasury Umerkot and according to him they were actually prepared by Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Akbar to whom the money was handed over by him. He stated that their signatures on challans are genuine. He further alleged that in presence of Abdul Rahim Samejo he paid these amount to Head Munshi Muhammad Siddiq Abdul Habib and at a very late stage Head Munshi Muhammad Siddiq Sub-treasurer Abdullah had been called and they have denied their signatures on the disputed challans. In his defence he has examined Tapedar Abdul Rahim, who has denied if Rs, 2,000 were paid in his presence by the appellant to Head Munshi Muhammad Siddiq.
4. ' Learned trial Court taking into consideration evidence adduced before it, convicted and sentenced the appellant abovenamed as herein-before mentioned and consequently appellant filed the above appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo. Of appeal.
5. ' At the time of adventure of appellant's appeal suo motu revision notice for enhancement of the sentences awarded to the appellant was also issued by this Court. Since both these matters arise out of the same impugned judgment, I propose to dispose of both these matters by this common judgment.
6. ' Learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted, that disputed signatures of P. Ws. Akber Abdullah and Muhammad Siddiq were not sent to Handwriting Experts and since appellant alleged that signatures on 2 challans were of these P. Ws., no reliance can be placed on mere oral statement by which they have denied their signatures, as these witnesses are real culprits. In the alternative, case is of 1965/66 and appellant has faced untainted trial and as such suo motu notice for enhancement of sentences be withdrawn.
7. ' The learned counsel appealing for the State on the other hand submitted, that he was fully supporting impugned judgment for cogent reasons given by the learned trial Court in arriving at his conclusions.
8. ' I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through R & P of the learned trial Court as well as impugned judgment.
9. ' Prosecution by the statements of P. Ws. Akber, Abdullah and Muhammad Siddiq, who denied their signatures on 2 challans and by comparing their admitted signatures, with disputed signatures arrived at conclusion, that their signatures were forged. The statement of appellant, that he handed over money in question to Head Munshi Muhammad Siddiq P. W, in presence of D. W. Abdul Rahim, was belied by the statement of D. W. Abdul Rahim. I find statements of all P. Ws.
10. Starightforward and convincing and see no reason to disbelieve them, as their statements were not at all shaken in their cross-examination. 1 have also compared the admitted signatures of P.
11. Ws. Akber, Abdullah and Muhammad Siddiq vis-a-vis their disputed signatures on Exhs. 4 and 5 and find material difference in them, as held by learned trial Court. As receipt of the amounts in question is not disputed by appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. And defence, that he gave said amounts for deposit to P. W. Muhammad Siddiq and Abdul Habib, is not even prima facie supported by any evidence on record, including that of D. W. Abdul Rahim, I see no reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by learned trial Court.
12. ' Therefore, I find no merit in the above appeal, which is consequently dismissed.
13. ' As far as suo mow revision for enhancement of sentences is concerned, it will be unfair to do so after lapse of 5 years, specially when offence is alleged to be off 1965/66 and appellant has been facing protracted trial right from 1973, as such the said notice is withdrawn and sou motu revision is dismissed.
14. ' If appellant has not yet deposited fine amount, learned trial Court is directed to issue non-bailable warrants for arrest of appellant and on his arrest to remand him back to judicial custody, to serve out sentences in lieu of fines imposed on him, by impugned judgment, dated 27th February, 1978.