' This appeal is directed against the judgment of Special Judge, Jhang, dated 29-8.1970, whereby Bashir Ahmsd appellant was convicted undo! Section 409, P. P. C. And sentenced to undergo R.
1. For 6 months and a fine of Rs, 500 or in default in payment of fine to undergo further R. I. For 3 maths.
2. Nur Muhammad P. W. Secured a loan of Rs, 900 with promise to re-pay it by instalments. He paid Ks. 200 to Bashir Ahmed Patwari appellant on 17-1.1963, and obtained receipt Exh. P. C. Bashir Ahmed did not deposit the said amount in Government Treasury and committed criminal breach of trust. Nur Muhammad found subsequently that the said amount had not been deposited by Bashir Ahmad Patwari. He submitted application Exh. P. B. Dated 18.3-1965, to Tehsildar, Shorkot, for taking appropriate action. An inquiry was held by the Tehsildar. It was found that Bashir Ahmad Patwari was guilty of committing criminal breach of trust. A case under section 409, P. P. C. Was registered at Police Station Shoikot on 1-12-1955. The appellant was challaned after investigation.
3. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of the case. Nur Muhammad complainant was examined as P. W.
1. He deposed that he took the taqavi loan of Rs, 900 and had to repay it by instalments. He further stated that he paid 2 instalments of Rs, 100 and Rs, 200 to the appellant who issued receipts but the appellant did not deposit the amount of Rs, 200 in theGovernment Treasury. He made application Exh. P. B. To the Tehsildar. Muhammad Roshan P. W. 2 stated that on the application of Nur Muhammad, an inquiry was initiated against the appellant. Taqavi Clerk produced application &h.
P. B., copy of receipt Exh. P. C , file of preliminary inquiry Exh. P. D., receipt Exh. P. A. In Behi Exh. P. A. 1, before the Police and the documents were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. E. Acquittance Roll Register Exh. P. F. Was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. F.
1. Wall Muhammad P. W. 3 attested memo. Exh. P. E relating to the recovery of documents Exhs. P. A.
To P. D. Khadim Hussain P. W. 4 produced documents Exhs. P. B , P. C., P. 0,, P. D., and P. A. And attested memo. Exhs. P. E. Sh. Muhammad Din, Hand Writing Expert opined that signatures on Exhs.
P. A. And P. B. And the routine signatures Exh. P. F. 2 had been written by one and the same person.
He farther disclosed that signatures on Bah. P. A. 2 to Bib, P. A. 4 were also by ono and the same person. Rai Sultan Ahmed, the then Tehsildar was examined as P. W.
7. Ch. Abdul Haq, A. S. I. P. W. 9 investigated the case.
4. Bashir Ahmed appellant denied the prosecution allegations. He denied to have received Re. 200 from Nur Muhammad Patwari. He further denied the execution receipt &h. P. A. He did not lead any evidence in defence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that no witness came forward to state that Behi Exh. P. 1 and the Acquittance Roll Register Bah. P. F. Remained with the appellant and he had been mating entries in the Behi and the Register, and thus the evidence of Handwriting Expert was not available to the prosecution. He further urged that specimen signatures of the appellant were taken down at Exhs. P. C., P. C./t and P. C./2 and nobody came forward to state that the specimen signatures of Bashir Ahmad appellant were taken down in his presence and in this view of the matter the evidence of Handwriting Expert could not be considered. The learned counsel further argued that the trial had vitiated since the sanction for prosecution as required under the law was not brought on the file of the case.
6. I have carefully considered the evidence on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Specimen signatures Exhs. P. C., P. C. 1 and P. C. 2 were obtained in the presence of a Magistrate but the Magistrate was not produced in Court to state that the specimen signatures had been obtained in his presence. It could not be stated with certainty that the specimen signatures were thus of the appellant. Nobody stated before the learned Special Judge that Behi Bah. P. A. 1 was it the posses. Sion of the appellant and the appellant had made routine entries at EA). P. A. Similarly none from the prosecution was examined to state that the Acquittance Roll Register Exh. P. F. Remained in the possession of the appellant and the appellant had been making entries in the said register. The learned counsel was justified in contending that the evidence of the Handwriting Expert was of no consequence. Sanction for the prosecution was required to be produced. I have checked the file and found that the sanction was not brought on the record of this case. Without prior sanction, the learned Special Judge could not take congizance. Since the sanction was not produced, the trial had vitiated.
7. For the reasons stated above, I accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Special Judge and acquit the appellant. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged of his bail bond.