Find a Lawyer

---S. 5(2)--Penal Code (X-TV of 1860), Ss. 465 & 468--Witness, produced to prove allegation. of misappropriation, admitting some facts going in favour of accused--Except statement of said witness, nothing on record present to prove misappropriation of amount--Accused acquitted in -circumstances.

(b) Prevention of Corruption Act (ll of 1947)--

---S. 5(2)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420--No evidence of cheating found on record--Accused acquitted.

(c) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)--

---S. 5(2)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 465 & 468--Ingredients of offences under section 468/465, P.P.C., not proved- -Co-accused owning receipts issued by them and prosecution riot proving any forgery--Accused acquitted.

(d) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)--

---S. 5(2)--No evidence of misconduct against accused found on record--Accused acquitted.

M. Pervaiz Akhtar and Ch. Nazir Ahmad for Appellants.

Nasim Abbas for the State.

Date of hearing: 13th March, 1982.

This appeal- arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti-.Corruption, Multan, dated 3-9-1971, whereby, he convicted Muhammad Nawaz, Nasir Javed and Sultan appellants under various sections. He sentenced Muhammad Nawaz appellant under section 509/ 420/468, P.P.C. read with sections 5 (2) 47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced him to 6 months' R.I. on each of the four counts and a fine of Rs.500, in default thereof to further R.I. for 4 months. He convicted Nasir Javed and Sultan appellants under section 465/ 468/'420, P . P. C . and sentenced them to 4 months' R.I. on each count and a fine of Rs.150, each one of the three counts in default of the payment to further R.I. for 11 months. The sentences, were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case in brief. is that Muhammad Nawaz appellant was working as Chairman of Unin Council No.79 and the Union Council was given Rs.6,500 under Rural Works Programme for the year 1963-64. On 4-12-1964. Ahmad Zaman, Development Officer checked the accounts of the Union Council including the receipt Exhs.P.D., p.E. and P.F. He also visited the School building of Chak No.64/WB and found that hand-pump and the Katcha bricks were not lying there and in fact, the pump was never installed and the bricks were not used and that the receipts Exhs.P.D., P.E. and P.F. were obtained without having purchased the water pump and the bricks.

3. Muhammad Nawaz, appellant withdrew a sum of Rs.1,117, for the installation of two water pumps in Primary Schools-of Chak No.64/WB,, and Chak No.62/WB. A sum of Rs.460, was to be utilized in preparing a well at School premises of Chak No.64/WB. Muhammad Nawaz appellant instead of using the said amount, issued forged receipts Exhs.P.D., P.E. and P.F. of the value of Rs.327, and Rs%330, from Javed Iron Store and- he also issued a receipt of purchase of Katcha bricks of the value of Rs.460 from Sultan, appellant. It was found that this amount had, in fact, been misappropriated by Muhammad Nawaz, appellant and the forged receipts were prepared by the remaining appellftnts. After the checking, the Development Officer, reported the matter to Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Assistant Director, Basic Democracies, Multan, who sought explanation from Muhammad Nawaz, appellant but Muhammad Nawaz did not give any explanation as the matter was reported to the police and as a result of the investigation, the appellants were challaned.

4. The prosecution examined five witnesses in all.

P.W.1 Syed Mubarak Hussain Shah, A. S. I.

He stated that he recorded the formal F.1 R Exh. P. A. /1 on the receipt of complaint Exh. P. A.

P.W.2 Ch. Muhammad Afzal:- He stated that he sent letters Exh.P.B. and Exh.P C. to the S.P. Anti-Corruption.

P.W.3 Ahmad Zaman, Development Officer:

He stated that he verified audit objection report and checked the receipt Exhs.P.D., P.E. and P.F. and also inspected the spot where no hand-pump was installed. He also visited School building of Chak No.64/WB where no Katcha bricks were found lying on the spot or used in the building. He sent a written report to Ch. Muhammad Afzal P.W.2. In cross-examination he stated that he did not know whether the articles mentioned in the receipts were. purchased but were not used at the spot. He further stated that before the inspection of the spot he had seen the water pump installed there on different occasions which was in that School building.

P.W.4 Sana Ullah Secretary Union Council:

He stated that he was posted as Secretary in the Union Council. According to the Cash Books the Councillor received Rs.6,500 under Rural Works Programme. In the Stock Register there is an entry of the purchase of two hand pumps. On the direction of Ahmad Zaman P.W.2, he made explanation Exh.P.K.

P.W.5 Ch. Dil Muhammad Inspector:-

He stated that he prepared the complaint Exh. P. A., partially investigated, the case, took into possession receipts Exhs.P.D., P.E. and P.F., vide memo. Exh. P. N.

5. The appellants when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations. Muhammad Nawaz appellant stated that Ch. Muhammad Afzal Assistant Director Basic Democracies was a relative of Ch. Abdur Rashid M.N.A., Vehari and since in the last elections he had not supported Ch. Abdur Rashid and the next elections were also approaching, Ch. Abdur Rashid had asked Ch. Muhammad Afzal and Ahmad Zaman P.Ws: to involve the appellant. Sultan appellant stated that he had issued receipt Exh.P.F. which is genuine. Nasir Javed, appellant stated that he issued receipts Exh.P.D. and Exh. P.E. of having supplied and installed water pump in the School building. In defence the appellants produced Abdul Hamid, Qamar Ali Jahara and Allah Ditta D.Ws.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as the ingredients of offences under section 468/465, P. P. C. are not proved. As against this, the-learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment.

7. I have gone through the record and have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. I find that the prosecution- has not succeeded in proving the commission of the alleged offences for the following reasons:-

(i) So far the allegations of the non-installation of the two water pumps is concerned, I find that the prosecution has produced only one witness namely, Ahmad Zaman. But' he has clearly stated in the cross-examination that when he joined the investi gation the- water pumps was found installed. He had also admitted P that before his inspection report he had seen the water pump installed there at different occasions. Except this statement there is nothing on the record to prove misappropriation of the amount, as such I am of the opinion that the, prosecution has failed to prove criminal misappropriation.

(ii) As far as conviction under section 420, P.P.C. is concerned,

there is no evidence of cheating on the record.

(iii) As far as forgery and the commission of offence under section

465/468, P.P.C. is concerned, the appellants Sultan and Nasir Javed have owned the receipt Exhs.P.D., P.E. and P.F and no forgery has been proved by the prosecution.

(iv) As far as an offence under section 5(2)47, P.C.A. is concerned, I

there is no evidence of misconduct against Muhammad Nawaz

appellant

8. For all these reasons, the appeal is accepted, the conviction and sentences are .set aside. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

H.A. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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