' This is an appeal against the judgment, dated 30-5-1995 passed by Mr. Muneer Ahmad Sheikh, Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, whereby he convicted the appellant under sections 409/420/468, and 471, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of P.C.A., 1947 and sentenced him under section 409, P.P.C. To undergo R.I. For 10 months and to' a fine of Rs,27,000 and in default of payment of fine to further R.I. For 5 months and under section 5(2) of P.C.A., 1947 to R.I. For 10 months and to a, fine of Rs,18,000 and in case of default to further R.I. For 2 months. Both the sentences were made to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the complaint Exh.P.W.2/3 are that Zahoor-ud-Din (appellant-accused) while posted, as Secretary Union Council Gehlan Hithar, District Kasur, in the year 1987-88, misappropriated certain amounts meant for the repairs of schools, Nikah fees, matching grant and taxes and withdrawn through forged cheques. The appellant-accused was charged for the offences under sections 409/420/468 and 471, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), of P.C.A., 1947. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset submitted that the charge was framed in violation of section 234, Cr.P.C. And, therefore, the trial had vitiated. He referred to the documents Exh.p'.W.16/10 of 1985 and the last one Exhs.P.W.3/1 and 2 and submitted that the charge contained the alleged misappropriated amounts beyond the period of 12 months and, therefore, it was a clear case of misjoinder of charges. In support of his contentions he relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:--
(1) Muhammad Hafeez v. Crown (PLD 1952 Lahore 34),
(2) Hidayat All v. Crown PLD 1952 Lahore 657)
(3) Ghulam Rasool v. The State (PLD 1965 (WP) Karachi 189),
(4) Abdul Latif Bhuiyan v. The State (PLD 1963 Dacca 494),
(5) Abdul Rashid v. The State (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Karachi 251) and
(6) Ali Nawaz v. The State (PLD 1960 W.P.) Karachi 287
4. There is much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is a case of misjoiner of charges and the provisions of section 234, Cr.P.C. have been violated. Obviously, it has prejudiced the case of the appellant. This ,case is not covered by the exceptions contained in sections 222 and 235, Cr.P.C. The appellant could be charged only for the offences not exceeding three committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences.
5. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and a retrial according to law is ordered.