Appellant, who at the relevant time was Chairman. Union Council Shah Jiwana, District Jhang, alongwith Saleh Muhammad, who was Secrct;my of that Union Council was tried by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha on the charge of their having misappropriated Government money to the tune of Rs.8,000 which had been entrusted to them for the purpose of repairs of Government Boys School, Shah jiwana. On the conclusion of the trial, vide judgment, dated 9-5-1987, where Saleh Muhammad co-accused was acquitted, the appellant was convicted under section 4(19, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to further undergo ten months' ST Aggrieved by it, lie came up in appeal.
2. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that being Chairman of the Union Council and Project Leader for the purpose of carrying out of the repairs of the school he was not a public servant within the meaning of section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 read with section 21, P.P.C.
And as such he could never be tried by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and his prosecution, trial, conviction and sentence, all were without lawful authority.
3. There is no substance in the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant because under article 98 of the Basic Democracy Order (l.8 of 1959) every member and every servant of a local government was deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21, P.P.C. And under section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 also referred to section 21 ibid. Therefore, the Chairman of the Union Council was a public servant for the purpose of 1947 Act and could be prosecuted on the charge of accepting illegal grantification. However, it was doubtful if as project leader he fell within the ambit of public servant or not.
4. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that, as per report of Sub-Engineer (Exh.P.D.), the appellant had carried out the necessary repairs of the school bilding but it was not in accordance with tire specification and estimate. In this connection he refers to the statement of Allah Ditta Sub-Engineer (P.W.4) and his report (Exh.P.D.).
5. From the report of this witness, who bad allegedly inspected the concerned building which was to be repaired, coupled with the statement in the trial Court, it appears that while carrying out the repairs, some items such as bottons, windows and doors, were altogether replaced by new ones.
The building was also got plastered. The plaster was somewhat substandard. According to this witness, the appellant had spent Rs.8,600 instead of Rs.8,000 sanctioned for the repairs. In other words the appellant had spent some money from his pocket. His only fault was that instead of carrying out the repair of some specified items mentioned in the estimate, he spent the money on sonic other items which, in his opinion, were more necessary to be replaced.
6. This being so, he does not seem to have misappropriated any money entrusted to him for the repair of the school and he committed no offence. His appeal is, thereforer accepted, his conviction and sentence are set aside, and he is acquitted.