Sajjad Hussain Zaidi, the Head Draftsman in the Mechanical Circle in Sind-Hyderabad was tried by the Special Judge-cum-Inquiry Officer, Anti-Corruption, Hyderabad in three separate cases under sections 420 and 468, P. P. C. And convicted and sentenced as follows: -
1. Criminal Appeal No. 151 /69-Special Case No. 250/65 Convicted under sections 420 and 468, P. P.
C. And sentenced to R. I. For nine months on each count, sentences concurrent, and under section 420, P. P. C., also to pay a line of Rs. 500 in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 152/69 arising out of Special Case No. 251 /65 Convicted under sections 420 and 468, P. P. C. And sentenced to R. I. For nine months on each count, sentences concurrent and under section 420, P. P. C. Also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
3. Criminal Appeal No. 152/69 arising out of Special Case No. 252/65 Convicted under sections 420 and 468, P. P. C. And sentenced to R. I. For nine months on each count, sentences concurrent and under section 420, P. P. C., also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 its default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
4. The appellant filed three separate appeals against the three separate judgments of conviction and since the nature of allegations and the defence raised by the appellant are similar in all the three cases, these three appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
5. The appellant who was a head draftsman in the Mechanical Circle of Sind in the years 1961 and 1962 had to go out of his headquarters in connection with his official duties. The appellant was entitled to claim travelling allowance and daily allowance at the permissible rates. The evidence in the three cases discloses that the appellant bad submitted his bill for travelling allowance and daily allowance twice and thereby obtained illegal benefit for himself by cheating the Government.
Inasmuch as he prepared documents on the basis of which the aforesaid allowances were sanctioned in his favour and paid to him, he had committed an offence under section 468, .P. P. C.
6. In Criminal Appeal No. 151/69 the brief facts are that the appellant had preferred a bill in respect of his travelling allowance and daily allowance on 24th June 1962 wherein he had claimed a sum of Rs. 157.24. This amount included his travelling allowance and daily allowance for a journey from Hyderabad to Lahore and back. This journey commenced on .8-2-1962 and the appellant returned to Hyderabad on 6-2-1962. This bill was duly sanctioned by the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Sind and was cashed and the amount paid to the appellant through National Bank of Pakistan on 26-2-1962. However, in respect of the same journey, the appellant preferred another bill on or about 11-5-1962 and in this second bill he claimed an amount of Rs. 174 for a journey performed by him from Hyderabad to Lahore and back between 6-2-1962 and 10-2-1962.
This bill was duly passed by the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle in Sind and paid through the National Bank of Pakistan on 14-5-1962. It is admitted case that the appellant had during the dates in question undertaken only one journey between Hyderabad and Lahore and not two journeys. In fact the appellant in his statement under section 342 did not deny the allegation that he preferred two bills for the same journey and obtained the amount on account of travelling allowance and daily allowance twice. In his statement before the trial Court he had stated that the duplicate bill was inadvertently drawn by him and in spite of the same being incomplete the amount was paid. This statement by the appellant clearly shows that hp did claim the travelling allowance and daily allowance for the game journey twice over. The bills are also signed by the appellant and certified by him as follows: -- "Certified that claim has not been preferred before."
7. The prosecution had at the trial examined besides other witnesses one Mobiuddin, a Senior Clerk in the Mechanical Circle, Hyderabad who identified the handwriting and signature of the appellant on the two travelling allowance bills (Exhs. 3 and 5) and also office copies of the same (Exhs. 4 and 6). On this state of evidence I am left with no doubt that the appellant did prefer two separate bills and obtained travelling allowance and daily allowance for the same journey twice over. In fact even the appellant does not deny it.
8. The defence raised by the appellant was that this was an act of inadvertence on his part and as soon as he came to know about it after one or two months he had credited the amount of the duplicate bill. The case of the appellant was that he had made an application asking for the deduction of the proceeds of the second forged bill out of his accruing bills. Although this application was not produced by the appellant he has produced in his defence a bill preferred by him in March A 1963 (Exh. 27) showing that he had refunded a sum of Rs. 88 out of his bill for the month of October 1962 and got the bill reduced by Rs.
88. This bill further shows that this amount of Rs. 88 was reduced on account of the travelling allowance bill for the month of May 1961. The effect of this deduction is that after nearly two years of the appellant having obtained the amount fraudulently and dishonestly he refunded the same. However, in this connection it is noteworthy that in December 1962 viz. Three months before the refund of the amount obtained by the appellant, the Superintending Engineer had already ordered adjustment of the excess obtained by the appellant. The circumstance clearly shows that the appellant did not refund the amount voluntarily, but did it only when the fraud had been detected. This is clearly disclosed by Exh. 28 which is a letter from the Superintending Engineer to the appellant.
9. In fact an explanation of the appellant was called by his Departmental Superiors and in his explanation the appellant stated that he used to be very busy with his work because he had to perform functions in two capacities and therefore he had committed the mistake unintentionally. I have considered this defence of the appellant and I am clearly of the view that the preferring of the second bill and obtaining money was not an unintentional act and it was deliberate. The circumstances of the case indicate that the bills were for the journey performed by the appellant on account of Government work and it is difficult to believe that the appellant could have forgotten that he had already claimed a bill for the journey, more so because the second bill has been preferred after a very short time. In fact the dates for the journeys given in the two bills are also slightly varied and this variation appears to have been purposely done by the appellant to hood- wink the authorities for checking and payment. Moreover, the tills had to be certified to the effect that the same had not been claimed before and the appellant did so certify the bills. These are circumstances clearly indicating that the act of the appellant was not unintentional but deliberate, and therefore, the case of the prosecution stood fully proved against the appellant.
10. In Criminal Appeal No. 152/69 also the facts similar with the only variation as to the dates of travel, the date of preferring the bills and the amount drawn by the appellant. In this case the appellant preferred a bill for Rs. 249 in respect of his travelling allowance and daily allowance from Hyderabad to Lahore and back in respect of his journey commenced on 15-1-1962 and terminating on 18-1-1962. This bill was preferred by him on or about 24-2-1962 and paid through the National Bank of Pakistan on 26-2-1962. It may be stated that the amount of Rs. 249 was the total monthly bill which included the travelling allowance and daily allowance regarding the journey from Hyderabad to Lahore and back and in respect of this journey the appellant had claimed Rs. 165.
Once again for the same journey the appellant submitted another bill on or about 11-5-1962 which was cashed and paid to the appellant on 14-5-1962. Both these bills bear a 'certificate of the appellant to the effect that the claim has not been preferred before. In these .Two bills also the dates of journey were shown to be different, inasmuch as in the first bill the appellant showed the dates of commencement of the journey to be 15-1-1962 and in the second bill he showed the fate of commencement of journey as 13-1-1962. In the statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. The appellant admitted having drawn the bill twice over but pleaded that it was through oversight and further that the same was adjusted from the subsequent travelling allowance bills. This subsequent travelling allowance bill has been produced on record as Exh. 31 and the same shows that-the amount drawn by the appellant fraudulently was returned and refunded from the subsequent bill preferred by the appellant in October 1962.
11. For the same reasons that I have given disbelieving the defence of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 15)/69, 1 hold even in this case that the plea of inadvertence on the part of the appellant is not proved and is in fact disproved.
12. Coming to the third case which is the subject-matter of Criminal Appeal No. 153/69, the facts too are similar. In this case too the appellant had preferred bill for Rs. 84.24 in respect of a journey from Hyderabad to Karachi and back performed between 16-5-1961 and 21-5-1961. This bill was preferred by the appellant on or about 27-6-61 and paid to him on 8-7-1961. In respect of the same journey the appellant preferred another bill on or about 31-8-61 and recovered the amount on 5-9-61. Both these bills are certified by the appellant as not having been preferred before. In the statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. The appellant admitted having drawn the bill twice over but pleaded that it was through oversight and further that the same was adjusted from the subsequent travelling allowance bills. This subsequent travelling allowance bill has been produced on record as Exh. 26 and the same shows that the amount drawn by the appellant fraudulently was returned and refunded from the subsequent bill preferred by the appellant in October 1962.
13. For the same reasons that I have given disbelieving the defence of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 151 /69, I hold even in this case that the plea of inadvertence on the part of the appellant is not proved and is in fact disproved.
14. Having discussed the evidence in all the three cases I am clearly of the view that the act of the appellant in submitting duplicate bills was a deliberate act done with an intention to defraud the Government and his act of refunding the amount does not provide any defence for him. Whether the act of the appellant was dishonest or not has to be inferred from the circumstances. In this case the circumstances clearly show that the act of the appellant was as per design and three cases of double claim could not be the product of mere carelessness or inadver--tence. Moreover, the amounts were not refunded until such time that the fraud had been detected. In fact even the learned Advocate for the appellant did not raise any other point except that he attempted to show that the appellant had acted merely in a careless manner and not in a dishonest manner. For the reasons aforesaid, I hold that the act of the appellant was deliberate and fraudulent. I, therefore, uphold the convictions recorded against the appellant.
15. The next point for consideration is the question of sentences. The act of the appellant relates to, the years 1961 and 1962 and the trial had dragged on till 1969. The amounts in question have also been refunded. The appellant in his state--ment before the trial Court has shown his age as 53 years and at present he is aged 56 years. I am informed by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the appellant has already been dismissed from service. Besides the ignominy and disgrace and the further pain of prosecution extending over a period of eight years, the appellant has lost the benefit of his Pension. This loss is a recurring loss. Regard being had to all these circum-- stances, I am not inclined to send the appellant to Jail. The appellant is said to have remained in custody for about a week. In the result while the convictions are maintained, the sentences in all the three cases are reduced to imprisonment already under- one anti a fine of Rs. 500 in each case. In default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months in each cease. The appellant shall there---fore, nay a total fine of Rs. 1,500 and the remainder of his sentence of imprisonment is remitted.