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.
Criminal Petition No. 69 of 1985, decided on 10th June, 1985.
(From the Order of the Lahore High Court, dated 22‑12‑1984 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1984).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860). S.409‑‑Criminal trial‑‑No legal infirmity in appraisement of evidence by Courts below‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 10th June, 1985.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal, by the Lahore High Court, of his appeal filed to challenge his convictions and sentences recorded in two cases, namely, 50 of 1976 and 51 of 1976, under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947).
2. The petitioner, who was Sub‑Postmaster at Katchery Post Office, Gujranwala, had, in Case No. 50 of 1976, received, on 24‑ti‑1972. Rs.10,000 from Raunaq Ali P.W. for deposit in the latter's account, in respect of which he made entry in the pass book but did not make corresponding entries in the ledger and saving bank journal of the Post Office and embezzled the money. In the other case he received Rs.5,000 from Ghulam Hussain, P.W. for a similar purpose but also embezzled the same in like manner.
3. The contention is that the petitioner's signature could not be considered proved in the absence of an opinion in this regard of handwriting expert. There is no legal basis for the contention. Moreover, there is evidence of the postal employees conversant with tile petitioner's handwriting, who testified that the signatures in the pass books were his. The next contention is that under para. 434(2) A.(1) of the Pakistan Post Office Manual, Volume VI, it is the Savings Bank clerk at a Sub‑Office who is concerned with the making of the relevant entries and as such the petitioner being only on supervisory duty was nut concerned. Unfortunately, there is direct evidence that the money had been received by the petitioner himself.
4: We are satisfied that the appraisement of the evidence by the Courts below suffers from no legal infirmity requiring an interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M. I. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer