1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioner was a Sanitary Inspector in the Municipality at Thatta. He was given a sum of Rs. 1,500 on account for the purchase of furniture etc. Out of this amount he purchased furniture from Pakistan Furniture Mart, Karachi, for a sum of Rs. 772 plus transport charges Rs.
40. The petitioner only paid a sum of Rs. 430 and promised to pay the balance of Rs.
2. 382 for which he executed two acknowledgements, Exhs. 15 and 16, on the 16th April, 1960 and 23rd April, 1960, respectively. As the petitioner failed to pay this amount, the Pakistan Furniture Mart made a complaint about it to the Thatta Municipal Committee. It may be mentioned that the petitioner purchased some other goods also for the Thatta Municipality and a balance of Rs. 159 out of the sum of Rs. 1,500 remained with him.
3. The F. I. R. Was lodged against the petitioner on the 23rd September 1964. He was challaned and the Special Judge-eum---Inquiry Officer, Hyderabad, convicted him under section 409, P. P. C. And sentenced to 9 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 400 or in default three months' rigorous imprison--ment. This order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 1969. His sentence was reduced to one week's rigorous imprisonment by a learned Single Judge of the High Court the 9th May 1969. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
4. After hearing the petitioner, we are satisfied that the thgh Court has dealt with the case of the petitioner leniently. The contention of the petitioner that he had deposited the sum o Rs. 159 before the 28th March 1960, is not supported by any evidence on the record. On the other hand the evidence shows that the said amount was refunded to the Municipality in March 1963. It is, therefore, quite clear that the petitioner had committed breach of trust of the said amount belonging to the Thatta Municipality. It is also in evidence that the petitioner had not paid the full price of the furniture purchased from the Pakistan Furniture Mart. He had admitted that a sum of Rs.
5. 382 had to be paid to this firm. It is thus quite clear that the petitioner has also pocketed Rs. 382 which was given by the Thatta Municipality, to him for purchase of furniture. In these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that he has not committed breach of trust cannot be accepted. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed.