Appellant, Imtiaz Ahmed, was sent up for trial for an offence under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala at Lahore, at the conclusion of the trial, vide his judgment dated 28-6-1988, convicted and sentenced him to nine months' R.I. And a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default R.I. For three months. Imtiaz Ahmed appellant has appealed against his conviction and sentence.
2. The prosecution story as disclosed in the F.I.R. Exh.P.E. Is to the effect that Imtiaz Ahmed had lodged a report with Police Station City, Gujranwala, on 5-12-1981 to the effect that he had lost two R.P.T. Books bearing Nos.2078 and 3076 wherein he has stated that he was a conductor in G.T.S. And was issued the said books in that connection. In the said F.I.R. He had also stated that in the book bearing No.3076, he had sold tickets from serial No.615001 to 615151. Thereafter, on 2-2-1983 the bus in which said Imtiaz Ahmed was Conductor, was checked by Muhammad Ashraf, Transport Inspector, who noticed that issue and receipt record in possession of Imtiaz Ahmed appellant was suspicious. The appellant was asked to produce the record issued to him by the Department but he failed to produce the same and stated that the said record was in his tool-box at Gujrat in the Staff Room. Accordingly, Muhammad Ashraf, Transport Inspector, came to Gujrat where the bus of Imtiaz Ahmed appellant also reached at about 4.00 p.m. He, in the company of Security Sub- Inspector of G.T.S., on the pointation of Imtiaz Ahmed appellant opened the tool-box and found R.P.T. Book No.3076 lying there. Tickets from that book had been issued upto 615151 instead of 615087 as asserted by Imtiaz Ahmed appellant in the earlier F.I.R. He had also not deposited the said amount with the authorities. In pursuance of this recovery, an inquiry was held and later on the present case was got registered against him. F.I.R. Exh.P.E. Was lodged by the District Manager, G.T.S., Gujrat, on 26-2-1983.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced 11 witnesses in all. Riyaz Hussain Shah, P.W.1, Senior Clerk, G.T.S., Gujrat, stated that on 14-3-1983, R.P.T. Book No.3076, Exh. PA was produced by Muhammad Anwar Qureshi, A.T.M., P.W.4, before the police which was secured, vide memo Exh.PB, which he attested. According to the said book, tickets from serial No.615001 to 615151 were sold and the rest were blank. Muhammad Anwar, A.S.I. PW-2, witnessed the recovery of ticket Book at the instance of the appellant from Gujrat. Jahan Dad, P.W.3 was Security Sub-Inspector, G.T.S., Gujrat.
On the direction from the District Manager he also accompanied the special squad which searched the tool--box of the appellant and recovered R.P.T. Book Exh.P.D. Gul Musat Khan, P.W.5, lodged complaint Exh.P.E. With the police against the appellant. Abdul Aziz, Constable, P.W.6 also witnessed the recovery of R.P.T. Book, Exh.P.D. At the instance of the appellant from his tool-box.
Muhammad Jamshed P.W.7 was Ticket Examiner of G.T.S. He alongwith others checked the G.T.S. Bus at Gujranwala of which the appellant was Conductor. On inquiry they were informed by the appellant that the record was lying at Gujrat in his tool-box and the same could be checked there.
He alongwith other PWs checked the tool-box from where P.R.T. Book No.3076, Exh.P.D. Was recovered. According to the said book some of tickets had been sold but were not accounted for.
Muhammad Ashraf P.W.8 on 2-2-1983 was attached with Special Magistrate and checked a bus where the appellant was conductor. On inquiry, the appellant could not produce conductor licence and ticket-book. He informed them that he had received documents but were lying in his tool-box at Gujrat. Accordingly, he also accompanied others who went to Gujrat and on checking recovered R.P.T. Book Exh.P.D. He further stated that the appellant had earlier got a case registered with regard to the theft of the same R.P.T. Book which was found lying in the tool-box of the bus. Ghulam Abbas, Junior Clerk, P.W.10 stated that on 5-2-1983 he gave a report, Exh.P.H./1 that the amount of ticket Nos. 615087 to 615151 were not deposited by the appellant in the office. Sardar Bakhsh, S.I., P.W.11 conducted the investigation and arrested the accused in the case.
At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant appeared under section 342, Cr.P.C.
Wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He, however, did not produce any defence nor appeared on oath in his own defence.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case. Submits that it has not been-proved beyond reasonable doubt that the book bearing No.3076 was in the exclusive possession of the appellant at the time of its recovery.
4. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. The prosecution witnesses were cross- examined at length on every aspect but the defence has not been able to bring anything on the record to indicate that they are inimical or interested. The registration of an earlier case with regard to the theft of R.P.T. Book bearing No.3076 by the appellant has not been denied. As far as the recovery of the said book at the instance of the appellant from his tool-box is concerned, it has also not been seriously challenged. The recovery of the said book from the tool-box of the appellant was witnessed by independent persons who were not even suggested any ill-will or motive for false involvement. The statement of Ghulam Abbas P.W.10 clearly indicates that the book was recovered at the instance of the appellant, some tickets had been sold from it but the sale proceeds had not been deposited. In cross-examination, the witness further admitted that after thorough checking he had made the report, Exh.P.H./I. This witness has also neither been suggested that he was telling a lie nor his statement even by way of any suggestion has been challenged. In these circumstances, I see no reason to discard the testimony of this witness.
5. For what has been discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any doubt. Resultantly, the appeal fails which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve the remaining period of his, sentence.