This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 6-10-1985, convicted Mst. Bilqees Akhtar appellant under section 420, P.P.C.
Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on two counts and sentenced her to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.1,500 in default thereof three months' R.I. On each count.
2. The appellant was a teachress. The charges against her were firstly that by giving two different dates of her birth in the admission forms of her Matriculation Examination, she cheated the Government. Secondly she fraudulently drew the salaries of the months of. May, June, July and August, 1978 from the Government Primary School Sadd. She denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined six witnesses. Arif Ali Shah P.W.1 stated that Mst. Bilqees Akhtar appellant had appeared in Matriculation Examination for the first time in 1965 from Government High School, Ferozepur and that she had given the date of her birth as June, 1949. He further stated that she again appeared in the Matriculation Examination in the year 1974 as a private candidate and gave her date of birth as year 1956. He further stated that the appellant who is his real sister had been drawing salaries for the month of May, June, July and August, 1978 simultaneously from Government Primary School Sadd and Darush Shaoor Primary School, Lahore.
In cross--examination he admitted that a complaint was filed against him for causing injuries to the appellant and her husband. Ghulam Qadir P.W.2 has proved the drawing of the salaries pertaining to the months of May, June, July and August by the appellant from the two aforesaid schools. Sajjad Ahmad Bill Clerk P.W.3 produced photostat copies of acquittance rolls for the months of May to August, 1978 of Government Girls Middle School, Fatehpur Centre Kasur, before the Investigating Officer. Riaz Virk, Assistant Manager, National Bank of Pakistan P.W.4 has proved the deposit of Rs.1,125 by the appellant in favour of Education Department on 3-1-1984. Mrs. Saeeda Sheikh P.W.5 the then Headmistress of Government Darush Shaoor, Primary School, Lahore stated that the appellant had received pay for, from 18th to 31st May, June, July and August, 1978 and that she had signed the acquittance rolls. She identified the signatures of the appellant. Ali Akbar P.W.6 had investigated the case. He also stated that the appellant had deposited three months pay on 3-1-1984.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant while admitting most of the allegations explained that she had resigned from Government Primary School, Sadd. Before her appointment in Darush Shaoor, Primary School. Her plea was that her brother the complainant had fraudulently been receiving the pay for the months of May to August, 1978 from the Government Primary School Sadd, which she had refunded.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that by giving two different dates of her birth the appellant has not committed offence punishable under section 420, P.P.C. And that she having refunded the amount could not have been convicted under section 420, P.P.C. 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 the appellant has been convicted on two counts as detailed above. As far the first count i.e. Giving of two different dates of her birth, I feel that she could not have been convicted under section 420, P.P.C. Inasmuch as neither she fraudulently induced some one nor anything was delivered to her in consequence of inducement. The allegations that she give two different dates of her birth accepted it its face value, her act does not fall within the purview of section 420, P.P.C. So far as the other count relatable to the drawing of the salaries for the months of -May to August, 1978 simultaneously from the two schools, I find that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that she and not her brother had drawn the salaries for these months from Government Primary School Sadd. The acquittance rolls bear her signatures which have been identified by Mst. Saeeda Sheikh P.W.5 the Headmistress of the School. The refund of the salaries for the aforesaid months does not exonerate her of the charge. It rather supports the allegations against her. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on this charge and has given sound reasons in support of its decision. The witnesses other than the complainant are quite independent. Their statements find support from the documentary evidence brought on the record. The appellant has failed to rebut prosecution case and its evidence on this count.
7. The upshot of the discussion is that while acquitting Mst. Bilqees Akhtar of the first count, her conviction and sentence on the second count is maintained. The learned counsel states that the fine on the two counts has already been deposited by the appellant. If so, Rs.1,500 out of Rs.3,000 already deposited by her be refunded to her.