' In all the above appeals the appellant is lqbal Hussain. The allegations in all the four cases are of misappropriation of Government money/Revenue Stamps and the evidence in all the cases is of common witnesses, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this judgment.
2. The appellant was serving as Assistant Stamp Depot-keeper in Hyderabad Treasury, Co- accused Imam Bux was Treasury Officer of Hyderabad Treasury while Zahoor Ahmad was Stamp Depot-keeper in the same Treasury. They were also co-accused with appellant lqbal Hussain, but Zahoor Ahmed died before the case was sent up for trial, while Imam Bux died during the trial.
Hence only appellant lqbal Hussain was tried.
3. It is alleged that on 5-10-1968 an entry was made by the appellant in the Stock-Register of the issuance of Entertainment Duty Stamps worth Rs,6,995 in favour of Venus Cinema. The entry showed that stamps worth the above amount had been issued to Venus Cinema under the authority of Zahoor Ahmed S.D.K. And Imam Bux Treasury Officer. In fact neither this amount was deposited in the Bank nor any stamps were issued to Venus Cinema and it was discovered on audit inspection that the value of the above stamps was misappropriated by the appellant and deceased co-accused Imam Bux and Zahoor' Ahmad. Such report was lodged by Eid Muhammad, who had taken over as Treasury Officer from Imam Bux. The case was investigated by Anti- Corruption Police and was sent up before Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Hyderabad in the year 1977 i.e, after seven years of the alleged offence. It was registered by the Special Judge as Special Case No, 22 of 1977 out of which Criminal Appeal No, 69 of 1981 has arisen.
4. Similarly there were three items of misappropriation, dated 6-3-1969, 20-3-1969 and 17-4-1969 amounting to Rs,200, Rs,74 and Rs,200 pertaining to issuance of Special Adhesive Stamps of the above amounts in favour of United Bank Ltd., Commerce Bank and Standard Bank Ltd., respectively.
On audit it was discovered that entries in the relevant register were made by the appellant at the instance of S.D.K. Zahoor Ahmed and Treasury Officer Imam Bux, although neither these amounts were deposited in the bank nor the stamps were issued to the alleged purchasers. It is alleged that value of the stamps of the above amounts were misappropriated by the appellant and the two deceased co-accused.
5. On the report of Eid Muhammad, another case was registered and sent up to the Special Judge for trial. This is Special Case No, 25 of 1977 out of which Criminal Appeal No, 66 of 1981 has arisen.
6. On 25-6-1969 similar three items of misappropriation of Entertainment Duty Stamps amounting to Rs,2,675, Rs,2,552.40 and Rs,3,800 showing issuance of stamps in favour of Qaiser Cinema, Shams Cinema and Chiragh Cinema, respectively were discovered. Such entries were made in the relevant register by the appellant at the instance of two deceased co-accused, but neither the amounts were deposited in the Bank nor the alleged purchasers had actually applied for purchase of the stamps worth the above amounts. This case was registered as Special Case No, 24 of 1977 by the learned Special Judge out of which Criminal Appeal No, 68 of 1981 has arisen.
7. On the same date i.e, 25-6-1969 an amount of Rs,4,803 was entered in the Stamp Register by the appellant showing issuance of Entertainment Duty Stamps of the above amount to Kohenoor Cinema Hyderabad, but it was discovered on audit inspection that neither this amount was deposited in the Bank nor Kohenoor Cinema had at any time applied for the purchase of stamps worth the above amount. The case pertaining to this crime was registered as Special Case No, 25 of 1977 by the learned Special Judge out of which Criminal Appeal No, 66 of 1981 has arisen.
8. There is evidence of common witnesses in all the cases from which it is proved that entries in the Stamp Register in all the four cases were made by the appellant, who was serving as Assistant Stamp Depot-keeper under Zahoor Ahmed S.D.K. And Imam Bux, Treasury Officer. In all the four cases the alleged purchasers of the stamps were examined, who have deposed that they had never paid any amount to the Treasury Office for purchasing stamps as alleged nor they had received the stamps of the value alleged to have been shown in the Stamp Register against their names.
9. In the first case the appellant was sentenced by the learned Special Judge to undergo R.I. For 2 years and pay a fine of Rs,12,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. For 6 months, which sentence is subject-matter of Criminal Appeal No, 69 of 1981. In the second case the appellant was sentenced to R.I. For one month and to pay a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. For one week, which sentence is subject-matter of Criminal Appeal No, 66 of 1981. In the third case the appellant was sentenced to R.I. For two years and to pay a fine of Rs,15,000 or in default to suffer R.I. For 6 months more, which sentence is subject-matter of Criminal Appeal No, 68 of 1981. In the last case the appellant was sentenced to R.I. For two years and to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. For 6 months more, which sentence is subject-matter of Criminal Appeal No, 67 of 1981. All the sentences were recorded for offences under sections 409 and 477-A, P.P.C. Read with section 34 and section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947.
10. The plea of the appellant in all the cases is that he was neither responsible for receiving the amounts from the intending purchasers of stamps, nor he had custody of the stamps with him, nor he was competent to issue the stamps. His plea is that he simply made entries in the Stamp Register as directed by his Officers namely, Zahoor Ahmad deceased S.D.K. And Imam Bux deceased Treasury Officer. They were responsible for receiving the amounts and issuing the stamps. His duty was only to make entries in the Stamp Register as directed by the above officers.
11. The above plea of the appellant is supported by P.W. Eid Muhammad, who had taken over charge as Treasury Officer from Imam Bux deceased. It is conceded by Mr. Imam Bux Shaikh that offence under section 409, P.P.C. Is not made out against the appellant, because neither the entrustment of the money, nor entrustment of stamps to him have been proved by the prosecution. The offence of breach of trust under section 409, P.P.C. If any, would be deemed to have been committed either by Imam Bux co-accused since deceased or Zahoor Ahmed co- accused since deceased.
12. So far as entries in the register are concerned, the appellant has admitted that he was only an Assistant to the S.D.K. And had to make these entries as directed by his Officers. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant had forged these entries dishonestly in order to defraud the Government. Hence the offence under section 477-A, P.P.C. Even is not proved against the appellant.
13. The trial is vitiated by another illegality which has been committed in separate trial of the appellant in four cases by the learned Special Judge, which is in violation of the mandatory provisions of subsection (2) of selction 222, Cr.P.C. Which runs as under:- "(2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 234: ' Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year."
Now all the items of misappropriation which are subject-matter of the four trials fall within one year. The first item of alleged misappropriation is, dated 5-10-1968, while the last item is, dated 25- 6-1969. In all there are eight items of misappropriation as enumerated above and all the eight items fall within one year. Hence the appellant should have been charged with one offence for all the eight items of misappropriation and not for four offences as done by the learned trial Court.
The separate trial' of the appellant in four cases under four charges was in violation of the mandatory provisions of subsection (2) of section 222 which has caused grave prejudice to the appellant and is, therefore, sufficient to vitiate the trial.
' For the above reasons all the four appeals are allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the offences he has been charged with.