' Through the instant appeal Haq Nawaz, the appellant has challenged the order, dated 16-11-1998 passed by the learned Special Judge (Central) Multan, whereby he convicted him under sections 409, P.P.C. And 5(2) 1947 (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947) and sentenced him for one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs, 1,000 or in default thereof for further three months simple imprisonment.
2. The appellant was also given the benefit of section 382-B of the Cr.P.C.
3. The allegation against the appellant (Station Master Railway Station Tommay Wali) is that kerosene oil had been entrusted to him for official use but he had been stealing the same. He was found taking kerosene oil in two plastic canes to this house. Accordingly a case was registered against him vide F.I.R. No, 10 of 1992, dated 1-5-1992 under section 409, P.P.C. And section 5(2)47 at Police Station, Railway Police, Bahawalnagar.
4. On receipt of the challan, the trial was conducted in the Court of Special Judge (Central) Multan.
The prosecution led evidence in support of its version. In the statement of the appellant recorded under section 324, Cr.P.C. He pleaded not guilty.
5. The learned Special Judge (Central) Multan vide his order, dated 16-11-1998 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned judgment is patently against law and facts inasmuch as the alleged stolen canes of kerosene oil which were allegedly taken into custody being the stolen property were never produced during the trial. He referred to certain material discrepancies in the statements of the P.Ws. Named; Allah Ditta, Points-man (P.W.1) and Allah Bakhsh Waterman, Railway Station Khairpur Tommay Wali. Muhammad Siddique Sweeper, Railway Station Khairpur Tommay Wali and Muhammad Idrees A.S.I. Pakistan Railway Station Haroonabad. He also pinpointed from the record that the complainant Allah Ditta as well as P.W.2 Allah Bakhsh and P.W.3 Muhammad Siddique were admittedly having history of enmity against the appellant. He stresses upon the point that no recovery has been effected from the appellant;
7. The learned counsel for the State through supported the impugned judgment yet he could not rebut the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant which are borne out from the record.
8. Besides other material flaws in the statements of the P.Ws., it could not be denied that the alleged recovered stolen property was not produced in the Court. This being so the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is a well-settled principle of law that benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused and conviction cannot be made/sustained if some doubt is established about the veracity of the prosecution story.
9. Resultantly, the instant appeal is allowed by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.