' The appellant, Khurshid Anwar, a Cashier in the Civil Secretariat, Lahore, was convicted by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, vide judgment dated 3-9-1974 under section 409, P.P.C. And sentenced to one years' R.I. And a fine of Rs, 25,000 or in default 14 years' R.I. He has come up in appeal against his conviction and sentence.
2. The occurrence in the instant case is said to have taken place in September, 1965, when the appellant was working as a Cashier under Mr. Aziz Ahmad Siddiqui, Section Officer. The precise charge against the appellant was that on or about 19-9-1965, being a public servant and by abusing his official position, he misappropriated Government Funds to the tune of Rs, 22,178.97 and in order to cover up this misappropriation made false entries in the Cash Book and also forged a receipt showing the same to have been signed by Mr. Aziz Ahmad Siddiqui. The prosecution case is that Messrs I.B.M. Trade Corporation, Karachi, were to receive Rs, 22,178.97 from the Government on account of certain bills. The bills were sanctioned whereafter the said amount was drawn from the Government Treasury by Khurshid Anwar appellant on 2-7-1965 for onward payment through a Bank Draft to Messrs I.B.M. Trade Corporation, Karachi. This amount was entered in the Cash Book Exh. P.W.4/A at page 28, which is shown to have been paid to the said Firm through Mr. Aziz Ahmad Siddiqui P.W.7. It is stated that, in fact, this amount was not paid to the said Firm but in spite of that the accused wrote a letter to the Firm asking them to send a Paces receipt in view of the receipt of the amount by them through Mr. Aziz Ahmad Siddiqui (P.W.7). They replied that the said amount had not been paid to them. The accused, therefore, made report to the higher officers giving all the details and also appended with the said report a receipt said to have been executed by Mr. Aziz Ahmad Siddiqui (P.W.7) acknowledging the receipt of Rs, 22,178.97. Mr. Aziz Ahmad Siddiqui, as the luck would have it, met an accident on 15-9-1965 and was, therefore, admitted in the Mayo Hospital, Lahore. He was asked to explain the situation. He denied having received the said amount from Khurshid Anwar accused. As a result of this, the matter was reported to the Anti-Corruption Establishment vide letter Exh. P.W.6/A on the basis of which the present case was registered. The accused was challaned and convicted as mentioned above.
3. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all. P.W.1 Muhammad Nawaz Malik is a formal witness.
He produced the record relevant to this case. P.W.2 Ghulam Hussain, an employee of the I.B.M. Word Trade Corporation, produced his bills and said that the amount was not received by the Firm. P.W.3 Malik Muhammad Ramzan is also a formal witness and had sent only a letter inquiring about the result of the present case. P.W.4 Chaudhry Ahmad Khan D.S.P. Partly investigated this case and took in possession the Cash Books Exh. P.W.4/A and B, Register Exh. P.W.4/C and Memo Exh. P.W.4/D.
Abdul Majid Qureshi (P.W.5) is a Hand Writing Expert. He opined that the receipt marked A (said to have been written by Mr. A.A. Siddiqui P.W.7 acknowledging the receipt of the disputed amount) did not tally with the specimen signatures and also the routine signatures of Mr. A.A.Siddiqui (P.W.7).
P.W.6 Abdul Rashid Cashier identified the handwriting of the officer on the F.I.R. Exh. P.W.6/A. P.W.7 Aziz Ahmad Siddiqui was the Section Officer. He denied the receipt of amount from the accused and stated that the said amount was misappropriated by the accused. He admitted signatures/initials on registers maintained in the office. He further stated that he had initialled the entries while in Hospital in the presence of Mr. Haider Qadwai, Advocate (P.W.9), Syed Irshad Hussain (P.W.8) and Mirza Muhammad Anwar (P.W.10) partly investigated this case.
4. The accused denied the charge and produced Mr. Abdul Rashid D.W.1, who identified the handwriting of Mian Muhammad Shafi, Additional Secretary, and also that of Mr. Aziz Ahmad Siddiqui on the receipt Exh. D.K. D.W.2 Mr. Hameedud Din only brought the original record.
5 I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State. I find that the important point to be decided in this case is whether Khurshid Anwar appellant handed over the disputed amount to Mr. Aziz Ahmad Siddiqui (P.W.7) or not. If the amount was handed over by him to Mr. Siddiqui then he cannot be held guilty for misappropriation of the said amount. The appellant produced a receipt marked A by the handwriting expert Abdul Majid (P.W.5) and Exh. D.K. Which was duly identified by D.W.1 Abdul Rashid as bearing signatures of A.A. Siddiqui P.W.7. According to this receipt the disputed amount was received by Mr. Siddiqui P.W. For payment to the concerned Firm.
The original of this receipt was lost in transit of the file from the Martial Law Headquarters to the Civil Courts. Only the photostat Exh. D.K. Was produced by the accused. The original had been received by the police during investigation as is clear from the document Exh. P.W.10/C admitted by the Investigating Officer. Mr. Siddiqui though denied the receipt of the disputed amount from the accused but did not specifically deny his signatures with reference to the receipt in question which was marked A by the Handwriting Expert in Court. The signatures of Mr. Siddiqui were sent for comparison to the Handwriting Expert but surprisingly enough the specimen signatures of Mr. Siddiqui were not obtained in the presence of any Magistrate. Those were obtained by the Investigating Officer himself and, as such, no reliance could be placed on them. Secondly, the routine signatures on the official record have also not been duly proved to be those of Mr. Siddiqui.
The Handwriting Expert admitted that he could not definitely say as to whether the alleged routine signatures were on some official documents or on private documents. In view of this evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has positively proved that the receipt marked A (Exh. D.K) did not bear the signatures of Mr. Aziz Ahmad Siddiqui. Mr. Siddiqui (P.W.7) has admitted in cross- examination that all the registers/documents produced in defence bear his signatures/ initials. He admitted to have initialled all the entries including the one dated 14-9-1965. It cannot therefore be said that the present appellant was responsible for not disbursing the disputed amount to the Firm.
In view of the above discussion, I find that the case against the appellant was not free from doubt.
He is given the benefit of doubt and, accordingly, acquitted of the charge. He is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.