' The two appellants were tried on charges under section 409/465, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by the Special Judge-cum-Enquiry Officer, Sukkur, who by a judgment dated the 22nd of April, 1970, convicted appellant Din Muhammad under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under sections 420 and 465, P. P. C. And sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs, 1,000 and the appellant Sher Muhammad was convicted under section 465, P. P. C. And sentenced to imprisonment until the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs, 500. In default of payment of fines the two appellants were ordered to suffer R. I. For six months.
2. The appellant Din Muhammad had filed an appeal through Mr. Abdullah Shah but at the time of bearing Mr. G. M. Qureshi has appeared for him. Appellant Sher Mohammad had filed an appeal through Mr. A. H. Pirzada, Advocate but at the time of hearing he appeared in person. The State has been represented before me by Mr. Nooruddin Sarki.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant Din Muhammad was the Headmaster of Government Middle School in village Agra (District of Khairpur) and the appellant Sher Muhammad was the Assistant Teacher in the same School. The transaction in the case relates to the year 1961 and the two appellants enjoyed their office at that time. It is stated that under the orders of the District Inspector of Schools Punkha Pullers had to be appointed. The services of six Punkha Pullars were sanctioned but the prosecution case is that appellant Din Muhammad did not appoint any Punkha Puller and by preparation of false salary bills recovered a sum of Rs, 469.32 from the Government as salary for the Punkha Pullers. The appellant Sher Muhammad is said to have attested the signatures of the six persons who had been falsely shown to have been appointed as Punkha Pullers. The names of the six persons who had been shown to have been appointed as Punkha Pullars are Ghulam Sarwar, Darbar Ali, Imdad Ali, Ghulam Ali, Dilsher and Abdul Sattar. Each one of them is shown to have received a salary of Rs, 78.22 for the months starting June, 1961 and ending September, 1961. I may state that out of this period the school had remained closed for some time on account of the long summer vacations.
4. Prosecution witness Nizamuddin who was a peon in the school where the appellants were serving as Headmaster and Assistant Master respectively, made an application to the Anti- Corruption Authorities and such application was received by Muhammad Ismail, an Asstt. Sub- Inspector in the Anti-Corruption Establishment on 5th of May, 1965. On the basis of such application a case was registered against the appellants. This application in original has been produced on record as Exh.
5. The Anti-Corruption Officer started investigation into the case and seized the record of the case.
After the investigation was completed he obtained sanction for prosecution of both the appellants and sent them up for trial which has resulted in the conviction and sentences as aforesaid.
5. At the trial the prosecution examined Ghulam Ali (P. W. I), Dilsher (P. W, 5), Abdul Sattar (P. W. 4), as three out of those six persons who as per the salary bills had been appointed as the Punkha Pullers in the school. Each one of them has given evidence that they had never been appointed as Purikha Pullers. Besides these witnesses Nizamuddin A peon who had made the application to the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Moulvi Noor Mohammad and Muhammad Mithal, two teachers in the school, have been examined by the prosecution to prove that in fact no Punkha Pullers had been appointed. Besides these witnesses the prosecution also examined, Ghulam Kadir, a Senior Clerk in the Office of the District Inspector of Schools to show that the District Inspector of Schools had sanctioned the appointment of Punkha Pullers. Rasool Bux, the successor of Din Mohammad as Headmaster in the, School was also examined but he knows nothing about the facts of the case. In addition to these witnesses the prosecution also examined Muhammad Ismail and Ghulam Murtaza who investigated the case.
6. The appellant Din Muhammad in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Has stated that he had in fact appointed Punkha Pullers and they had been paid. He stated that all the witnesses were men of one Mr. Badaruddin Zahidi, a high official of the Government, who weilded enormous influence in the village Agra where the school is situated, and he had on account of enmity, set up these witnesses to depose against him. With regard to Nizamuddin peon who had made the initial application to the Anti-Corruption Establishment disclosing the defalcations, the appellant stated that he was a close relative of Badaruddin Zahidi and further that he had been accused of commission of theft from the house of the appellant. In short his case was one of complete denial of the allegations and false implication at the instance of Badaruddin Zahidi. He has examined 7 defence witnesses, namely, Faiz Muhammad, Syed Mehdi Hussain, Shafi Muhammad, Allah Dino, Muhammad Yacoob, Shujja Muhammad and Dhani Bux. These witnesses have been examined to establish enmity of Badaruddin Zahidi with the appellant and also to prove that in fact the Punkha Pullers were working in the school.
' Appellant Sher Muhammad has stated in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. That actually Punkha Pullers had been employed and had to be paid and that he had attested the signatures or thumb marks of these Punkha Pullers. He however, stated that he was told by appellant Din Mohammad to attest the signatures or thumb marks and be did so in good faith. He examined no witness in his defence. The principal evidence of the prosecution in this case is furnished by prosecution witnesses Ghulam Ali, Dilsher and Abdul Sattar, the three persons out of the six persons who according to the record had been employed as Punkha Pullers and had been paid. Each one of these witnesses has clearly denied that he was ever employed as a Punkha Puller in the Agra School or received any amount. While Ghulam Ali is a barber by profession, Abdul Sattar and Dilsher are cultivators by their profession. The cross-examination of these witnesses has indeed been very scanty. All that Ghulam All has been asked in cross-examination is whether Mr. Bad aruddin Zahidi was a respected person in the locality which fact of course he admitted. As far as Abdul Sattar i. Concerned, he stated that he did not know Badaruddin Zahidi at all. As far as Dilsher is concerned, he stated that Badaruddin Zahidi is related to Nizamuddin the peon who had actually made the report against the appellant to the Anti-Corruption Establishment. He further admitted that a theft had been committed in the house of appellant Din Muhammad but he did not know who was responsible for the theft. The evidence of these three witnesses appear to be true and there is nothing on the record to indicate that they were giving false evidence or had any motive to implicate the appellant falsely. All that was suggested in cross examination was that they were under the influence of Badaruddin Zahidi and while Ghulam Ali stated that he looked to Badarudin Zahidi as an elder, the other two witnesses stated they had no connection whatsoever with Badaruddin Zahidi.
The evidence of these three witnesses is also strongly corroborated by the evidence of Mouivi Noor Muhammad (P. W. 6) and Muhammad Mithal. (P. W. 7). These two witnesses were teachers in the same school and they have also stated that Punkha Pullers had not been appointed. However, all that was alleged by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Against the prosecution witness Muhammad Mithal was that the latter had a grudge. Against him because he was a dullard and used to be reprimanded by appellant Din Mohammad. There is however, no evidence on that point and such questions were not suggested to the witness in cross- examination.
' The next witness on the point is Nizamuddin. There is no doubt that Nizamuddin was accused in a case of theft which had been instituted by appellant Din Muhammad. However, the established position is that Nizamuddin was a peon in the school and had full knowledge whether Punkin'
Pullers had really been employed. Nizamuddin is related to Badaruddin Zahidi also, but whether Badaruddin Zahidi had any hand in this case will be dealt with by me in the latter portion of the judgment. Suffice to say that even if the evidence of Nizamuddin is kept out of consideration I am satisfied as to the truth of the evidence of the remaining witnesses, namely, three persons who had given evidence that they had never been employed as Punkha Pullers, which is corroborated by the evidence of Moulvi Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Mithal, the two teachers in the same school who state that Punkha Pullers were indeed never employed.
' In regard to the preparation of the bills and the withdrawal of money by the appellants and the attestation of the signatures of the payees, the appellants had not disputed the position. In fact the defence of the appellants is that the Punkha Pullers had been employed and they had received the salary.
7. The defence of the appellant is that the case has been instigated against him by Badaruddin Zahidi with whom he has got enmity. He has stated that Nizamuddin peon is related to Badaruddin Zahidi and it was he who had complained against him. He has further led defence on the point that the Punkha Pullers had indeed been employed. He has examined seven witnesses in his defence and I now propose to deal with the evidence of these defence witnesses.
8. The first defence witness is Faiz Muhammad, the Chairman of the Union Council. He has stated that there were Jhalies fixed in the class rooms but he did not know how many Jhalies were fixed.
He has in any case not stated whether the six persons who are alleged to have been shown as Punkha Pullers in the school were in fact the Punkha Pullers. This defence witness has however, given evidence with regard to enmity between Badaruddin Zahidi on the one hand and Mehar Ali, an uncle of the appellant Din Mohammad on the other. He has also stated that Nizamuddin peon was married to the sister's daughter of Mr. Badaruddin Zahidi. He also stated that Nizamuddin had committed theft in the house of appellant Din Muhammad. The second defence witness is Syed Mehdi Hussain who had stated that he had seen 3 or 4 Punkha Pullers pulling Punkhas in the school and he further went on to say that he had only seen three Punkhas in three classes. This witness also did not state that the three Punkha Pullers who had been examined by the prosecution were in fact pulling Punkhas in the school. He also gave evidence in regard to strained relations existing between Mehar Ali, the uncle of the appellant and Badaruddin,Zahidi. The third defence witness was Shafi Muhammad who was a teacher in 1960 in the said school. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that in 1960 no Punkha Pullers bad been appointed. However, this transaction relates to the year 1961 and Shtti Muhammad was serving in the school in 1960. The fourth defence witness is Allah Dino who states that he used to pass by the school and used to find Punkhas being pulled in the school. The witness stated that he had never gone in the school and for that reason the witness could not possibly state whether the persons produced by the prosecution were actually working as Punkha Pullers in the school. The fifth defence witness was Muhammad Yacoob who stated that he used to find boys pulling halies in the school. I must at this stage state that the three witnesses namely, Ghulam Ali, Dilsher and Abdul Sattar are aged 20 years and could not be considered to be boys. What is more that this witness is a resident of Gomhat, a place 12 miles away from the school. The sixth defence witness Shuja Muhammad has also stated that he used to see school boys pulling the fans. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the three prosecution witnesses Ghulam Ali, Dilsher or Abdul Satter were studying in that school. The seventh and the last defence witness Dhani Bux has stated that the Government had not sanctioned services of Punkha Pullers for the school in which he was serving as a teacher. This defence witness was serving as a teacher in some other school. He also admitted that apppellant Din Muhammad was his distant relative.
9. On a consideration of the evidence of these seven defence witnesses I find that they have established the enmity that existed between Mehar Ali, an uncle of the appellant and Badaruddin Zahidi, but they have not been able to advance the case of the appellant to the effect that the appellants indeed employed Punkha Pullers or paid any Punkha Puller. In fact none of the defence witnesses has stated that any one of the three prosecution witnesses namely, Ghulam Ali, Dilsher and Abdul Sattar was seen working as a Punkha Puller in the school.
10. It is possible that Badaruddin Zahidi may be inimically disposed to the appellant and further it is established that Nizamuddin peon is related to Badaruddin Zahidi and was accused by the appellant in regard to the commission of the theft. However, these are just side issues. The main issue is whether the appellant had obtained money by preparation of false pay bills and by forgery of receipts. On that point the evidence appears to be completely unshaken and the case of the prosecution is established beyond any doubt. Possibly Nizamuddin may have made an application on account of the grudge that he had against the appellant but that would not show that the allegations in the application were incorrect.
Mr. G. M. Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellant Din Muhammad has attempted to argue that the prosecution should have examined an expert to show that the signatures on the bills were not genuine. This argument considered logically would imply that the three Punkha Pullers namely, Ghulam Ali, Dilsher and Abdul Sattar were giving false evidence in saying that they did not receive remuneration. The prosecution in this case examined these witnesses besides the two teachers, namely, Moulvi Noor Muhammad and MuLammad Mithal, and also peon Nizamuddin to show that in fact there was no Punkha Puller. Under these circumstances the burden fairly was on the appellant to examine any evidence to the effect that the signatures of the three Punkba Pullers were genuine. In any case the three witnesses Ghulam Ali, Dilsher and Abdul Sattar do not at all stand discredited on the evidence that they have given. I see no substance in this contention. The other contention of the learned Advocate is that Mr. Badaruddin Zahidi has got the appellant implicated. I have already discussed that aspect of the case and I see nothing in the evidence pointing to such an inference. Possibly Mr. Badaruddin Zahidi bears enmity against appellant Din Muhammad but that by itself does not show that the witnesses bad been set up by Mr. Badaruddin Zahidi or were in any manner under his influence.
' According to me the prosecution evidence is conclusive and proves the case against appellant Din Muhammad beyond any reasonable doubt.
Coming to the case of appellant Sher Muhammad he has admitted having attested the signatures of the persons whose signatures appear on the pay bills. In his statement under section 342, Cr. P.
C. He stated that he acted in good faith because appellant Din Muhammad had asked him to sign the papers-Good faith in law would mean acting with due care and caution. Having attested the signatures of persons who had never signed in his presence would not protect him under the law. I, for that reason have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that he too is guilty. In fact appellant Sher Muhammad has stated before me that he adopted the contentions raised on behalf of appellant Din Muhammad.
11. On a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of this case I am of the view that the guilt of the two appellants has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and I, therefore, dismiss their appeals and uphold the convictions.
12. .