' FALAK SHER, J.---Petitioner a Lambardar was inducted in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,18 of 21- 2-2000, Police Station Tirkhanwala, District Sargodha, under section 409, P.P.C. At the instance of Muhammad Sher Halqa Patwari pursuant to the directions of A.C. Sahiwal, alleging misappropriation of the collected land revenue Rs,1,06,500 pertaining to the period Rabi 1997 to Rabi 1999 Village Kakrani, having failed to deposit the same in the Government Treasury, which consequent upon registration of the case matured into reality through his brother on 21-2-2000, culminating into his conviction and sentence of one year R.I. With a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default to suffer 3 months S.I. Availing the benefit perceived by section 382-B, Cr.P.C. By Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Sargodha on 28-5-2001.
2. Whose findings on appeal were affirmed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, dismissed the petitioner's appeal Criminal Appeal No, 868 of 2001 vide the impugned judgment, dated 21-5- 2003 concluding as under:--- "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. A very short point is involved in this appeal. The appellant's brother had deposited all the amount which was outstanding towards the appellant on 26-2-2000 while the F.I.R. Was registered on 21-2-2000. The appellant retained with him the amount which was deposited with him by the landowners from Rabi 1997 to Kharif 1997, Rabi 1998 to Kharif 1998 and also from 1999. He did not deposit the same with the concerned authority, then Patwari Halqa reported against him to the Tehsildar who was examined as P.W.1. According to the statement of Tehsildar P.W.1, he summoned the appellant but he did not appear. The defence of the appellant before the learned trial Court was that he was in Karachi in connection with the treatment of his son who was ill but neither in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Nor before the trial Court he gave the period of his stay in Karachi. He did not deposit the amount which was handed over to him by the landowners for more than 3 years and same was deposited by his brother on 26-2-2000 after registration of the F.I.R. Case against the appellant is proved, however, as held by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha that there is mitigating circumstances in his favour and that he after the registration of case deposited the amount in question through his brother, conviction and sentence awarded tothe appellant is maintained and the notice for the enhancement of the sentence issued against him by my learned brother. Mr. Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, J. Is hereby withdrawn. Appellant being on bail be taken into custody and serve out his remaining sentence."
3, Against which leave to appeal is being sought contending that registration of the case was without jurisdiction being the domain of the Anti-Corruption Establishment; Lambardar being not a public servant, the petitioner was not amenable to section 409, P.P.C. And no loss to revenue has occasioned with the deposit of the entire amount.
4. With which we are not impressed because independent of the fact that the former plea was not urged before the trial Court or the High Court, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for having been tried by the Court of competent jurisdiction where the prosecution proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt through confidence inspiring testimony of 9 witnesses, proving illegal retention A of the collected sum for over-stretched period of three years, vouching the embezzlement and admittedly consequent upon registration of the case was deposited with the treasury through his brother vide receipts Exhs.P.17 to P .22 .
5. While the second submission is contrary to the settled law from times immemorial since the petitioner's case is squarely covered by clause Ninth of section 21 of the P.P.C., relevant text whereof for the sake of convenience of reference is reproduced herein below:--- "Ninth: Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of the Government, or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the Government, or to execute any revenue process, or to investigate, or to report, on any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the Government, and every officer in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty; " viz. As a Lambardar he was obliged to receive and keep the collected Government revenue for performance of which duty, he was remunerated by fees or commission. On which count it is conducive to refer the case of Said Muhammad and others v. Emperor AIR 1935 Pesh.
189.
"A Lambardar performs the public duty of collecting land revenue and is remunerated by a commission known as "Pachotra". It therefore follows that a Lambardar is a public servant within the meaning of the Penal Code. Amongst the duties imposed upon a Lambardar by rules under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, which are in force in this Province, is the collection of all and revenue and all sums recoverable as land revenue."
6. Similarly, we are afraid the last submission is equally ill-founded because loss to the revenue being not the essential ingredient of the Offence of Criminal breach of trust as envisaged by section 405, P.P.C. Inter alia postulating entrustment of the property, conversion thereof to one's own use or dishonest use which could even by of temporary nature; text whereof for the sake of convenience of inference is reproduced herein below:--- "405. Criminal breach of Trust.--- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any domination over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly use or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law or prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust."
7. It may be pointed out that the offence of dishonest misappropriation or conversion to one's own use is not contingent upon time span rather it is the coincidence of the actus rea and mens rea.
Resultantly, the conviction and sentence being well-based and the petition fails and is hereby dismissed leave declined.