MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIKJ.- 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 Section 420,408 PPC. The Magistrate Ist. Class, Jaranwala vide judgment dated 3.5.1979 recorded conviction and sentence of one year's 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 and sentence under Section 408 PPC. 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. 1300/- 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. l,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 . Mount 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 Cleric 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 in as much as plea in this regard was neither put to the witnesses in cross- examination nor taken in the statement by the petitioner at the close of the trial.
5. Thus there is ho force in the revision petition on merits which fails am1 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 PPC instead of 40S PPC. 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 fine of Rs.15,000/- or in default thereof one year's R.I. Would meet the ends of justice. The fine would be deposited in the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate within one month of today, otherwise the petitioner would be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence.