KHALID MEHMOOD Versus THE STATE Sh. Saeed Ahmad , Malik Muhammad Azam Khan for the State.

Khalid Mehmood /son of Muhammad Din was tried by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, for an offence under section 409, P.P.C. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 23-4-1988 convicted and sentenced him till rising of the Court with a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default of payment of the fine further R.I. for one month. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.

2. The prosecution story, in brief as disclosed in F.I.R. Exh.P.W.6/1 lodged by Syed Afzaal Hussain Naqvi, Principal, Government Intermediate College, Ravi Road, Lahore, was that Khalid Mehmood was a Junior Clerk in the College. During the months of September, October, 1979 he misappropriated Rs.4,440 and went away. In this connection, former Principal of the College Mr. Shaukat Malik made many efforts for the recovery of the amount but failed. On assuming the charge of Principal, the first informant also made efforts. He also directed Prof. Muhammad Ayyub for inquiry, who submitted his report that said Khalid Mehmood had misappropriated Rs.8,075, Which he had received from students, Rs.205 were also due from him. Out of the said amount Rs.3,840 were deposited later.

Khadim Hussain, A.S.I., P.W.8 had partly investigated the case. He took into possession all the documents from the Head Clerk vide memo Exh.P.W.3/1. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused. Shahid Farooq, Inspector, P.W.5 also partly investigated the case.

3. The prosecution in support of its case produced eight witnesses in all. Afzal Hussain, P.W.1, was Principal of Government Intermediate College, Ravi Road, Lahore. He took the charge on 14-1-1982. He directed Bursar, Ayyub Rizvi, to hold an inquiry, which was, accordingly, held. He learnt that Khalid Mehmood, appellant, former Junior Clerk of the college had collected fees from the students, for the months of September and October, 1979, amounting to Rs.8,000, out of which he deposited Rs.3,800, the rest was misappropriated. He had got the case registered vide complaint Exh.P.W.1/1. P.W.2 Muhammad Ayyub Rizvi in the year 1979-80 was Bursar. He held an inquiry and gave report to the Principal, which showed the involvement of the appellant. P.W.3 Sarfraz Ahmad Gill, Head Clerk of the College had given copies of receipts Exh.P.W.3/1-2. Masood Shaukat Malik, Senior Professor, P.W.4 was former Principal of the College, and, according to him, misappropriation had come to his notice and he had made efforts for the recovery of the amount from the appellant. Shaukat Farooq, Inspector, P.W.5 had partly investigated the case and submitted the challan. Ghulam Sarwar, S.I., P.W.6 had recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.P.W.6/1. Khadim Hussain, A.S.I., P.W.8 had investigated the case.

At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath, wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question, he also stated that when he came to know about the registration of the case, he deposited the amount. He further stated that there might have been an error of account but he had not committed any embezzlement. He also appeared on oath in his defence and pleaded innocence. He had produced two witnesses as well. D.W.1 Ghazanfar Ahmad was Head Clerk and had taken charge from the appellant when he was proceeding on leave. D.W.2 Muhammad Yaqub, Senior Clerk produced registers D.W.2/1 and D.W.2/3.

4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was highly doubtful. Submitted that before proceeding on leave the appellant had handed over charge and at that time no allegation of embezzlement was levelled against him. Submits that a perusal of the register clearly indicates that the first page of the register was replaced and the same was done obviously, when the appellant was on leave, in order to involve him. The contentions were resisted by learned counsel for the State.

5. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence. It is admitted that the appellant lead received tuition fee from the students by issuing receipts, which are Exhs. P.W.2/1 to 138. The amount comes to Rs. 8,075. Thereafter, it was the duty of the appellant to enter the same in a register maintained by the College Exh.D.W.2/1 and D.W.2/3 by giving number of receipt books and names of the students. On perusal, it has transpired that some of the receipts and names of the students were not mentioned in that register. Even otherwise, it has come on the record that after entering the details in register Exh.P.W.2/1 and D.W.2/3 it was the duty of the appellant to deposit the amount in the bank. Bank challans were maintained and a copy of each challan is retained by the bank. The appellant at no stage requested the Court for the summoning of the record or even asserted that it was available with the bank. In the absence of that it can very safely be inferred that the appellant had not deposited the amount. It has come on record that after the appellant had proceeded on leave, some amount was deposited in the bank, which the appellant had given and at the time of handing over of the charge he had given it to his successor. This fact could completely rule out the possibility of false involvement because the money was deposited after the appellant had left, but for the period when he was working in the college and had received it. I have noticed that when Masood Shaukat Malik, former Principal of the College appeared as P.W.4, and being cross-examined, the appellant gave him a suggestion that the amount could not be deposited because he was overburdened with work. This would clearly indicate, his involvement. As far as the defence witnesses are concerned, they do not help the case, of the appellant at all, to the contrary they have supported the prosecution case. Ghazanfar Ahmad, D.W.1, stated that he was not even present when checking of the accounts was made before the appellant left. Muhammad Yaqoob, D.W.2 stated that the appellant had failed to deposit Rs.4,440 received from the students when he was working as Junior Clerk in the College. This D.W. has clearly saddled the appellant with misappropriation of Rs.4,440. Even otherwise, I do not see any reason why any of the witnesses should falsely implicate the appellant. When the evidence was recorded, he was not even in service as has been discussed. Out of prosecution witnesses, two were Principals of the College and the third was a Bursar. None of the witnesses was suggested any mala fides, therefore, I hold that complete reliance on their statements can be placed.

For what has been discussed above, I hold the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any doubt. The appeal fails, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

N.H.Q./K-321/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.