Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 7 of 1951, decided on 14th February 1951.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 15th December 1950, of the Chief Court of Sind, in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 189 of 1950).
----
----Art. 160‑Facts of case, as presented by petitioner, requiring close scrutiny‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court.
Sh. Bashir Ahmad, Senior Advocate Federal Court (Ghfas Mohd., Advocate Federal Court with him)instructed by Muhammad Siddiq Khan, Attorney for Petitioner.
M. Anwar, Advocate Federal Court instructed by S. Zahir Abbas, Attorney for the Crown.
This is a petition for special leave to appeal by one Hamid Hussain, Head Cashier in the office of the Electric Corporation of Hyderabad. The. petitioner and one Mangha Ram, the Secretary of the said Corporation, were put upon trial before the Special Magistrate of Hyderabad, on a charge under section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Magistrate gave them both the benefit of doubt and acquitted them. Against their acquittal the local Government preferred an appeal. Mangha Ram, the co‑accused, having in the meantime migrated to India, the appeal against him was not proceeded with. The Chief Court of Sind, after hearing the arguments for the petitioner Hamid Hussain allowed the appeal, and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment.
Shortly stated, the case for the prosecution was that the petitioner and Mangha Ram had committed breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 10,600 belonging to the Electric Corporation. The defence of the petitioner was that this sum of money was taken by Mangha Ram, who had given a receipt for the same, but had subsequently done away with it surreptitiously.
It has been urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that some of the cogent reasons given by the trial Court in support of the order of acquittal have not been adequately and sufficiently dealt with by the learned Judges, who heard the appeal, and that certain assumptions have been wrongly made by them to the prejudice of the petitioner. It is further submitted that while reversing the decision of the trial Court the learned Judges have neglected to give sufficient importance to the relative position of the petitioner and the co‑accused Mangha Ram, to the system of accounting prevalent in the office, to the entries in the cash‑books, and to the opportunity which Mangha Ram had, for extracting the receipt given by him.
The judgment of the trial Court may not be quite satisfactory, but the facts presented to us on behalf of the petitioner need to be closely examined. We would, in the A circumstances, grant leave to appeal.
The petitioner has also made an application for grant of bail pending the disposal of his appeal in this Court. We are not disposed to grant this application, but we consider it desirable that the hearing of the appeal be expedited. We would with that object excuse the parties from compliance with the requirements of rule 4 of Order XLIV ' of the Rules of this Court relating to the printing of the record by the Chief Court. We direct that the original record of this case be sent for at once from the Chief Court, and ten typed copies of the record be prepared at the cost of the petitioner under the supervision of the Registry. We further direct that the prescribed period for lodging concise statements in this Court by the appellant and the respondent be appropriately curtailed.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer