' M. BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.---The petitioner was tried by the learned Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, under section 409, P.P.C. Read with subsection (2) of section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; and also under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with subsection (2) of section 5 of the aforesaid Act. He was found guilty under section 409, P.P.C. Read with subsection (2) of section 5 of the said Act and was sentenced to 10 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,8 lacs, in default, to suffer further imprisonment of 3 years' R.I. He was also found guilty and sentenced to 5 years' R.I. Each under the other sections mentioned above. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently and in case of realization of the amount of fine a sum of Rs,5,33,000 was ordered to be paid to the United Bank Limited, Abbottabad per judgment dated 10-1-1984. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 9-9-1987.
2. The petitioner was posted as Manager of United Bank Limited, Bhandan Branch in the year 1980, and in that capacity he used to take cash from the main Branch of the Bank in Haripur for payment to the account-holders of his Branch and thus the main Branch feeded the cash requirements of his branch. On 8-10-1981 the accused/petitioner approached Mr. Iftikharuddin P.W. 8 Zonal Chief of the Bank at Abbottabad for four days casual leave. The leave was sanctioned on the understanding given by the petitioner that he had requested Mr. Sharif an Officer of the Sabzi Mandi Branch, Haripur to work as substitute for him during his leave period. However, on 12-10-1981 Mr. Allah Yar Khan the Manager of the Sabzi Mandi Branch of the Bank at Haripur informed that he was unable to spare Mr. Sharif; and that the keys of Bandhan Branch alongwith the relieving order were delivered to him by Parvez Shah, P.W. This being the situation Lutfur Rahman an employee of the Main Branch was sent to Bandhan Branch alongwith Mahboob Elahi to take over the charge of the Bandhan Branch. They found that cash entry regarding the amount of Rs,35,000, collected by the accused/petitioner from the Main Branch, Haripur on 8-10-1981, was not entered in the relevant register of the Branch. This information was conveyed to Khurshid Alam Mir of the Main Branch, Haripur. On this Mr. Riaz Hussain Shah and Khurshid Alam proceeded to Bhandan Branch to check the record. There it was also revealed to them that Azam Shah the accused/petitioner had left Pakistan. This further strengthened the doubts in the minds of the Bank Officers. Therefore, the record of the Branch was checked from the date of posting of the accused/petitioner in the Branch upto the date he left the Branch which revealed that 29 amounts shown in Exh.P.7/1 to Ex.P.7/29 received by the accused/ petitioner were not deposited but were misappropriated by him.
Accordingly report Exh.P.2 was sent to the S.H.O. Kot Najibullah for registration of the case against the accused/petitioner. List Ex.P.8/3 showing that a total amount of Rs,5,33,000 received by the accused and criminally misappropriated by him, was also sent to the S.H.O.
2-A. On completion of the investigation by the F.I.A. Challan was submitted in the Court of Special Judge who recorded the statements of a large number of prosecution witnesses. After the close of the prosecution evidence the accused/petitioner was examined by the Court. He denied his connection in the misappropriation of the amounts and repudiated all the charges in this behalf.
He, however, did not deny that he was posted in the United Bank Limited, Bhandan Branch during the relevant period, and that he had proceeded on leave on 8-10-1981 without handing over the charge, but he stated that he had given the keys to the Manager of the Sabzi Mandi Branch, Haripur. The learned Special Judge, relying on the evidence referred to above and examining the relevant documents placed on the file, found that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused/petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, and, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused/petitioner as stated above. Appeal in the High Court failed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 9-9-1987 on the ground that mode of trial and misjoinder of charges vitiated the trial inasmuch as the offences of misappropriation under section 409, P.P.C. Read with subsection (2) of section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 could not be tried alongwith the offences of forgery and cheating, and, therefore, the conviction of the accused/petitioner under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Was not maintainable in law. It has caused serious prejudice to the accused in the trial, and, therefore, the entire proceedings be set aside; that the statements of prosecution witnesses, on which reliance has been placed, would show that these witnesses had clearly violated the instructions embodied in Circular Letter Exh.D.X; that they equally shared the responsibility and were accomplices in the commission of the offences the accused/petitioner was charged with.
4. We have gone through the evidence, the impugned judgment and the various documents on record and are of the view that the trial of the accused/petitioner had been conducted properly within the framework of the procedural law, under subsection (2) of section 222, Cr.P.C. When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 234; Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year. Under section 233 of the Cr.P.C. For every distinct offence, of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately except those mentioned in sections 234, 235, 236 and 239. Section 235, Cr.P.C. Reads as follows: "235.--(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for every such offence
(2) If, the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being, by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences
(3) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them, may be charged with and tried at one trial for the offence, constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more of such acts."
This section is enabling and, therefore, it is not obligatory that all the charges should be specified.
The other requirement is that there must be one continuous thread of a common purpose running through the acts to support a joinder of charges in respect thereof, and 'transaction' means a group of facts so connected together as to involve certain ideas namely, unity, continuity and connection. In order to determine whether a group of facts constitute one transaction it is necessary to ascertain whether they are so connected together as to constitute a whole which can be properly described as a transaction. It is not possible to enunciate any comprehensive formula of universal applicability for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction, but circumstances which bear on the determination of the question in any individual case can be indicated by saying that proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design are the principal criteria for deciding whether certain acts form parts of same transaction or not. Section 236, Cr.P.C. Reads as under: "If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved, will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may he tried at once, or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences."
' Illustration (a) to the above section runs as follows: "A is accused of an act which may amount to theft, or receiving stolen property or criminal breach of trust or cheating. He may be charged with theft, receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust and cheating, or he may be charged with having committed theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating."
' The answer to the question really depends on the facts of each case and it must be seen in each case whether or not prejudice has been caused to the accused by reason of his conviction for various offences at the trial. In this case we find that no prejudice has been caused to the accused/petitioner. We have also considered the question that the petitioner had been convicted for misappropriation and was sentenced to 10 years' R.I. Under section 409, P.P.C. Read with subsection (2) of section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. His conviction and sentence under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Read with subsection (2) of section 5 of the aforesaid Act is also correct; and since the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner in the maintenance of his conviction and sentence. The petition merits consideration neither on any point of law or point of fact, and is without substance.
We decline to grant leave and the petition is, consequently, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.