' Shujah-ud-Din son of Muhammad Din was sent up for trial by Police Station A.C.(E) Lahore for an offence under section 406, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947. Senior Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore vide his judgment, dated 3-8-1986 convicted and sentenced him under section 409, P.P.C. To two years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,60,000 or in default further R.I. For two years. The convict has appealed. The judgment will dispose of the same.
2. Prosecution story in brief as disclosed in F.I.R. Exh.P.B. Lodged by Mr. Abdul Waheed Khan, Director, Excise and Taxation, was to the effect that Shujauddin Cashier of his Department whose duty was to receive cheques and draw money from the State Bank of Pakistan for its disbursement, his job was also to maintain registers and cash-books. On scrutiny it was found that Rs,50,559.59 was drawn by him from time to time but the same were not disbursed and were misappropriated.
3. Rana Mubarik Ali, P.W.8, Inspector Anti-Corruption Lahore after registration of formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 investigated the case. He took into possession bills Exh.P.A./1-23 from the office ,of Director Excise and Taxation vide memo. Exh.P.J. He also took into possession six cheques Exhs.P.D. To P.I. He secured specimen signatures of the accused in presence of the Magistrate vide memo. Exhs.P.J./1 to P.J./6. Muhammad Aslam Inspector P.W.7 had submitted the challan.
4. Prosecution to establish its case produced eight witnesses in all. Abdul Waheed Khan P.W.1 Director, Excise & Taxation, Lahore lodged the F.I.R. When the amount in question which was misappropriated came to his notice. He formed a Committee to look into the matter. He also identified signatures of the appellant According to him the misappropriation came to his knowledge when bills of U.B.L. And Police Petrol Pump were not, paid. Abdul Majid P.W.2 Excise and Taxation Officer, Lahore was member of the Committee constituted by P.W.1. According to his report the appellant had received cash from the State Bank of Pakistan vide entry Exhs.P.C./1--P.C/8 but the same were not paid either to U.B.L. Or the Police Petrol Pump. Syed Manawar All Shah P.W.3, Assistant Accounts Officer, Accountant-General's Office, Lahore produced 6 cheques, received in his office. Muhammad Akhtar P.W.4 Head Clerk, Office of Excise and Taxation, Lahore stated that Director, Excise and Taxation was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer but the appellant used to receive them after they were endorsed by the Director. He identified signatures of the Director as well as of the accused with which he was familiar. He further stated that a letter was received from U.B.L. That charges of Computer were not paid. Under directions he visited U.B.L. And it transpired that no payment had been made to them. He has also produced the Cash-book Exh.P.C. And vouchers Exhs.P.A./1 to PA./11 before the police and signed the recovery memo. Exh.P.J. Muhammad Idrees P.W.5 Inspector, Excise & Taxation, Lahore was member of the Committee constituted by the'Director to verify the bills. On verification it transpired that the appellant had received payments from the State Bank of Pakistan but the same had not been paid to U.B.L. Or Police Petrol Pump.
Muhammad Sarwar P.W.6 Handwriting Expert after comparison stated that specimen signatures tally with the signatures of cheques Exhs.P.D. To P.I. Which were of the appellant. The case was investigated by Rana Mubarik Ali P.W.B.
' The Court had also recorded statement of M. Iqbal Qureshi, Admn. Officer, U.B.L. Computer Centre, Lahore as C.W.1. According to him they had not received payments till 15th March, 1982 and he issued third reminder Exh.C.C. However, on 7-7-1982 they received Rs,40,251.30. Thereafter he issued 4th reminder Exh.C.D. That. Rs,40,096.70 was still due.
5. The appellant on the conclusion of prosecution was examined without oath wherein he refuted the prosecution allegation and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question he further stated that the amount in question was misappropriated by the Director but he was made a scapegoat. He also appeared in his defence on oath and pleaded innocence. He produced 4 witnesses in his defence. Khalid Waheed D.W.1, brother-in law, of the appellant stated that on 23-10-1982 he went to the house of the appellant at 7/8 p.m. And found that he was still in office. He went to his office and saw the appellant writing something in the cash-book, while some other persons were dictating.
M.A. Rahim Khan, D.W.2 was neighbour of the appellant. According to him, on 23-10-1982 he learnt that the appellant had not come from office till evening, therefore, he went them and found that 4/5 persons sitting with the appellant were dictating whereupon the appellant was writing something. Ghulam Muhammad Cheema, D.W.3 stated that the appellant remained his subordinate from 1962 to 1972 and he did not give any chance of complaint during that period.
Wasiq Ali Khan D.W.4, Bank Officer, M.C.B. Stated that he knew the appellant for the last 30 years. He can identify his signatures. According to him signatures Exhs.P.B./1 to P.B./6 were not of the appellant.
6. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not proved. Submits that there was no direct or indirect 'evidence to indicate that the amount in question, in fact, had been misappropriated by him. Submits that the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to indicate that he was involved in the commission of the offence.
7. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State. The defence has not challenged that the appellant during the relevant period was an employee of Excise and Taxation Department.
It has also not been challenged that it was not one of his duties to present cheques on behalf of the Director for encashment and receive the amount. The misappropriation was detected because letters issued by M. Iqbal Qureshi, C.W.1, Admn. Officer, U.B.L., Computer Centre which are Exhs.CA., C.B., C.C. And C.D. Informing the Department regarding outstanding amount. Abdul Waheed Khan P.W.1, Director, Excise and Taxation has given details how the cheques used to be cashed. He further stated that the cheques in question'were signed by him and thereafter they were signed by the appellant in his presence and he had verified signatures of the appellant as well. Thereafter the cheques were again signed by the appellant before the Officer of State Bank of Pakistan at the time of receiving the amount and he identified all the signatures of the appellant. Muhammad Akhtar P.W.4, Head Clerk, in the Office of Excise and Taxation also identified the signatures of the appellant on the cheques being familiar with them in routine. Both the witnesses were corroborated by Muhammad Sarwar P.W.6, handwriting expert. All the above-mentioned witnesses were cross- examined at length but nothing could be brought. On the record to indicate that they had any enmity with the appellant to falsely implicate him or they were not truthful witnesses. The appellant has not been able to account for the amount which he admittedly received from the State Bank of Pakistan. On the other, hand in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He admitted that it was his duty to receive cheques and have them encashed from the State Bank of Pakistan making entries in the Cash Book and thereafter disburse the amount to U.B.L. And Police Petrol Pump.. He also admitted that bills P.1 to P.23 were presented by him in the office of Accountant-General which were passed and he received cheques. Lie also admitted having received six cheques the detail of which was alsoput to him. He also admitted having affixed his signatures on the cheques. However, denied having received the amount and having signed it at the relevant time. He also admitted having made entries detail of which was given in the question in the Cash-book which are Exhs.P.C./1 to P.C./8. He also admitted having made entries but pleaded that they were made under threat and dress . As far as defence witnesses produced by the appellant they do not A advance his plea in any manner. D.Ws.1 and 2 are brother-in-law and neighbour respectively. They never appeared before the police to establish the plea of innocence of the appellant, therefore, their statements are absolutely afterthought. As far D.W.3 is concerned his statement is irrelevant and statement of D.W.4 does not inspire confidence because he could not possibly be in a position to identify signatures of the appellant. Even otherwise the appellant himself had admitted having affixed his signatures on the cheques. The said signatures were compared by the handwriting expert with the specimen signatures and the same were found to be of the appellant.
8. As already discussed the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on the record to indicate that the witnesses were not truthful or had any motive for false invovlement of the appellant. Even otherwise the prosecution has been able to establish its case by means of documentary evidence corroborated by the statement of handwriting expert.
9. For what has been discussed above I do not find any merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There is, however, some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence had taken place about nine years ago. The appellant had also lost his job in the meanwhile. He had 30 years service to his credit and in such circumstances he may not be sent behind the bars to serve the remaining portion of his sentence of imprisonment has some force. In these circumstances while dismissing the appeal I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. The appeal is dismissed in these terms.
Sentence reduced.