Shabirul Hassan, appellant, T. M.
0., Postman of G. P.
0., Lahore, was entrusted with T. M. O. No, 1752 of 2nd July 1965, with an amount of Rs, 125 to be disbursed in favour of remitter, Muhammad Yusuf, but instead misappropriated the same. He was tried under sections 409, P. P. C. And 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act but was convicted under section 5 (2) and sentenced to a fine of Rs, 200 and in default of payment of fine : to undergo R. I.
For two months, on 4th February 1971, by the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore.
2. The answer of the appellant to the allegation was that he had received money under T. M.
0. No, 1752 and the money had been disbursed in favour of a person claiming himself as Muhammad Yusuf and that he had committed no misappropriation. Muhammad Yusuf appeared as P. W. 1 and deposed that he had not received back the money.
' In his examination under section 342, Cr. P. C. The appellant also admitted that he did not pay the amount to Muhammad Yusuf (P. W. 2). This witness is a person to whom the money should have been given under the money order. In his cross-examination it was suggested to this witness that there is another Muhammad Yusuf cited as a P. W. Who resides in the same locality. The witness did not enquire from the other Muhammad Yusuf whether he had received the money. This other Muhammad Yusuf son of Abdullah appeared as P. W.
3. He claimed to be illiterate and stated that no money had been received by him from the appellant. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that on 24th July, the appellant came to him and he claimed the money order. He also denied that the witness forced the appellant to pay him the money. Therefore, the defenc version seems to be that the appellant had paid the money to this witness. The appellant in his statement claimed to have made payment to one Muhammad Yusuf son of Muhammad Abdullah. From this trend it appears that when the appellant was not able to prove that the money had been delivered to P. W. 3, he introduced another Muhammad Yusuf.
The appellant is supposed to be a literate person. The money had to be given to Muhammad Yusuf son of Allah Ditta (P. W. 2) and he had no business to deliver money order to Muhammad Yusuf son of Muhammad Ramzan. I am not in a position to accept the story that in fact the appellant had given money to a Muhammad Yusuf, whatever may be the parentage.
3. Under the circumstances, the guilt of the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no merit in this appeal.