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. K‑29 of 1974, decided on 2nd September 1974.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, in Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 1972, dated the 8th March 1974).
----S. 409‑Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5(2) Criminal breach of trust.‑Accused admitting entrusting of amount involved but pleading to have spent same on contingent expenses which according to prevailing practice had to be reimbursed by Head Office‑No proof adduced in support of plea‑Lower Courts finding amount not spent on contingency expenses, helot, correct- Conviction, rightly recorded and upheld.
M. I. Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 2nd September 1974.
The petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge‑ cum‑Enquiry Ofcer, Hyderabad, for an offence under section 409, P. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Ii of 1947 and sentenced to R. I. for three months and a fine of Rs. 10,000. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 months more. The petitioner challenged this order in Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 1972 and a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, by judgment dated the 8th March, 1974, reduced the amount of fine from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 3,000 and reduced the sentence of imprisonment also for the period already undergone. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment.
The prosecution case is that the petitioner was working as a Clerk in the Rural Health Centre at Tandojam, during the period commencing from 8th August, 196 to 7th Nay, 1965. It is alleged that during his tenure, he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,770.65, out of the amount collected from the out‑door patients fees which was entrusted to him.
The prosecution case is supported by Dr. Ghulam Mustafa, P. W. 3 Mumtaz Ahmad and P. W. 5 Niaz Ali.
The petitioner has admitted that the amount in question was entrusted to him. His defence is that this amount has been spent in meeting certain contingency expenses like repairing of the cycles, washing charges etc. According to him, a practice had crept in the said office and the proceeds of these collections were to meet the contingency expenses and they were later on reimbursed by the Head Office.
In view of the admission of the petitioner that the above amount was entrusted to him, it. was for him to prove that the amount in question was spent on contingency expenses and they were not reimbursed by the head Office. He has failed to do so. Both the trial Court and the High Court have gone into this question and have held that this amount was not spent on contingency expenses. We have gone through the order of the High Court, in our opinion, they have rightly upheld the conviction of the petitioner. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer