This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, whereby he on 19-5-1985, convicted Ghulam Muhammad appellant under section 409, P.P.C. And sentenced him to 6 months' R.I. And a fine of Rs.2,000, in default thereof S.I for 4 months.
2. The charge against the appellant was that he having been entrusted with police files of criminal cases F.I.R. Nos.18/83 and 19/83 of P. S. Anti-Corruption, Jhang, committed breach of trust by misappropriating documents such as cash memos. Quotations, bills, receipts and other documents out of the police files of the aforesaid cases. He was also charged under section 468/34, P.P.C. For having forged some documents.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 6 witnesses. Rana Aman Ullah P.W.5 stated that the original documents which were taken into possession by him in cases F.I.R. Nos. 18 and 19 and which were in the police files were removed therefrom and were no more on record. Iftikhar Ahmed P.W.1 and Pervai2 Akhtar P.W.4 did not support the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of no evidence. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that most important witnesses having resiled did not support the prosecution and that the statements made by Ahmed Yar S.C.O., Rana Aman Ullsh P.W. And the report Exh.P.D. Is not sufficient enough to prove the entrustment to and breach of trust of the documents, by the appellant. The learned trial Court has not given sound and cogent reasons in support of its decision. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. For what has been said above, while giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.