Waheed Tariq was an employee of Muslim Commercial Bank, Jaranwala Branch in the year 1978.
There was misappropriation of the amount of Rs.10,000 by him and so Pirzada Muhammad Hafeez, Regional Manager Lyallpur (P.W.17) reported the matter to the police.
2. The petitioner was challaned and tried under sections 420, 408. P.P.C, The Magistrate 1st Class, Jaranwala vide judgment, dated 3-5-1979 recorded conviction and sentence of one year's R.I.
Under the former head and two years' R.I. With a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I.
Under the latter. He appealed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment, dated 7-12-1982, set aside the conviction under section 420, P.P.C. But maintained the conviction and sentence under section 408, P.P.C. He has come up in revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard and record gone through with his help while none has appeared for the State. The allegation against the petitioner was that Mehdi Khan account-holder of Account No.41 (P.W.16) deposited Rs.1,300 on 11-7-1968, the entry was duly made in his passbook after receipt of cash by the petitioner but in the Bank record no entry was made.
Similarly the amount of Rs.1,900 of Muhammad Sharif P.W. Deposited on 29-9-1970 was given the same treatment by the petitioner and in all he misappropriated an amount of Rs.10,000.
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in addition to the petitioner other Bank employees like Cashier, Ledger Clerk, Receipt Clerk were dealing with the account books and if the entries had been signed by the petitioner in the passbooks of the depositors/account--holders it did not mean that the cash had also been received by the petitioner. But the witnesses have clearly stated that the money was passed on to the petitioner who made entries in the passbooks and signed the same. The contention must be rejected inasmuch as plea in this regard was neither put to the witnesses in cross-examination nor taken in the statement by the petitioner rat the lose of the trial.
5. Thus, there is no force in the revision petition on merits which fails and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner being a Bank employee having misappropriated the property of the Bank/depositors, he should have been charged and convicted under section 409, P.P.C. Instead of 408, P.P.C. Anyhow, the matter is very old and retrial would not be in the fitness of things. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that even sending him to jail at this late stage would not advance the ends of justice. He has been behind the bars for about three months during and after the trial. So, the sentence already undergone and a tine of Rs.15,000 or in default thereof one year's R.I. Would meet the ends of justice. Order accordingly. The fine would be deposited in the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate within one month of today, otherwise the petitioner would be to custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence.
S.A./W-14/L