Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 1975, decided on 16th April, 1979.

--- S. 409 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5 (2)---Criminal mis-appreciation-Evidence, appreciation of--- Signature of accused not appearing on receipt side, of cash book but only on balance-side-Accused not signing on receipt side finding same to be incorrect---Accounts maintained by senior clerk absconding since start of enquiry-Accounts also not preferred according to Rules-Lower Court, held rightly found charge of mis-appreciation not proved against accused.

A. R. Qureshi for the State.

Abdul Khaliq for Respondent.

Date of hearing :16th April, 1979.

-This Criminal Acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge-cum-Enquiry officer, Hyder abad, dated 30th May, 1975, acquitting the respondent of an alleged offence under section 409, P.I'.C. read with section 5(2) of Act 11 of 1947.

2. The case of the prosecution was that during the period between 18-7-1963 to 15-6-1964, the respondent had collected various amounts of public dues out of which he did not deposit Rs. 14,141.70 and thus he had misappropriated the same. The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case. All the allegations were denied by the accused.

3. The learned Special Judge, after looking into the Cash Books Exhs. 13 and 16 found that the signature of the accused did not appear on the receipt-side of the Cash books but he had signed only on the balance-side and since the said books were maintained by the Senior Clerk Muhammad Soomar, it could be inferred that the respondent did not sign on the receipts-side because he found the same to be incorrect and not proper. The learned Judge found that the accounts were not maintained to accordance with the Union Councils Accounts Rules, 1960, and as such no reliance could be placed on the entries made therein specially when the Account Books were kept and maintained by the Senior Clerk Muhammad Soomar who had absconded on the commence ment of the enquiry by the Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption. 1n the circumstances, the learned Judge, held that the charge of misappropriation was not proved against the accused who was acquitted.

4. We have gone through the evidence and were unable to find anything in the judgment so as to justify any interference with the same in this Acquittal Appeal. Mr. A. R. Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant, was unable to point out anything from the evidence showing that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case.

5. In the result we find no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.