1. ' This criminal appeal arises fromt he judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, whereby he on 2-6-1982 convicted Khaliq Ahmad appellant under section 409/109, P.P.c.
2. And sentenced him to 18 months' R.I. And a fine of Rs,3,500 in default thereof to six months' R.I.
2. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I feel inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant on account of illegality in the trial of the appellant, therefore, I need not enter into the merits of case. I find that the trial Court tried the appellant in violation of the provisions of sections 222 and 234, Cr.P.C. The charge framed by the trial Court may be reproduced conveniently:- "I Sh. Ijaz Ahmad, Senior Special Judge, Anti-Coerruption, Punjab, Lahore at Sheikhupura hereby charge you Khaliq Ahmad son of Mahboob Ahmad caste Moghal aged 36 years resident of Jeita Bhatti, Tehsil Khanpur, District Rahimyar Khan Sub-Engineer Tubewell Operation Sub-Division, Lahore Road Sheikhupura on the allegation that in 1973-74 while you were posted as Overseer in tubewell operation Division (South), Sheikhupura, by abusing your official postion in collusion with your co-accused Munir Ahmad Driver, dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated 979 gallons Government petrol of the value of Rs,8,811 by making bogus entries in the log book of vehicle No,SA/1503 detail of which is as under:-
(1) Bogus entries in respect of journeys against 8,609 miles were shown between 12-6-1973 and 14- 7-1974 in the log books which were not attested by any competent authority and thereby 860 gallons petrol of the value of Rs,7,740 shown to have been consumed for performing those journeys was misappropriated.
(2) Your co-accused travelled by Government vehicle No,SA/1503, a total distance of 829 miles consuming 82 gallons of petrol of the value of Rs,738 for appearing as an accused in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore and thereby you in collusion with your co-accused misappropriated the said petrol.
(3) In the log book two bogus journeys covering 130 and 83 miles were cancelled by Muhammad Rafiq S.D.O. But 21 gallons of petrol of the value of Rs,189 was shown to have been consumed for performing those journeys and the same was misappropriated.
(4) It was shown in the log book that 16 gallons of petrol of vehicle No,SA/1503 had been transferred to vehicle No,SA/1498. But in fact no petrol had been transferred to vehicle No,SA/1498 and therefore those 16 gallons of petrol of the value of Rs,144 were misappropriated.
3. ' And thereby you appear to have committed offence under section 420/409 P.P.C. Which is triable by this Court.
4. ' I direct that the case for the above offence be tried by this Court."
5. ' The relevant provisions of law read as follows:- "Section 222, Cr.P.C..---Particulars as to time, palce and person, The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom; or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are. Reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(1) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest miscappropriation of money, it shall be sufficient to sepecify 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 of exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence with the meaning of section 234: ' Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year."
6. "Section 234.--Three offences of same kind within one year may be charged together. (1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences whether in respect of the same person or not he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for any number of them not exceeding three.
(2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Pakistan Penal Code or of any special or local law: Provided that, for the purpose of this section, an offence punishable under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under section 80 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of Pakistan Penal Code or of any special or local law shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence".
7. From the bare reading of the provisions of law reproduced above, it is very much obvious that the appellant could not have been tried for more than three offences committed between 12-6-1975 and 14-7-1976 which exceeds 12 months. That being the position, there is no option but to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and send back the case to the trial Court for re-trial according to law. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.