MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an appeal by the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which had upheld the petitioner's conviction for criminal breach of trust. The petitioner, a Tapedar, was convicted by a Special Judge for misappropriating Rs. 500 received from a complainant, in violation of section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of prosecution witnesses whose statements regarding the cash payment were allegedly absent from their initial police statements. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had properly appreciated the evidence. The Court reasoned that the omission of the cash payment detail in the police statements occurred because the witnesses were only questioned about the cheque payment at that time. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the credibility of witnesses or the alleged tampering of the receipt, and dismissed the petition, affirming the conviction.
- Can a conviction be sustained when prosecution witnesses omit specific details in their initial police statements?
- Does the failure to mention a specific payment in a police statement necessarily render witness testimony unreliable?
- Is the appreciation of evidence by lower courts subject to interference when findings are based on a proper evaluation of the record?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioner who was a Tapedar Incharge of Tapo Sindhri, Taluka Khipro, District Sanghar, was tried by the learned Special Judge-cum- Enquiry Officer, Anti- Corruption, Hyderabad, for an offence under section 409, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for having misappropriated an amount of Rs. 500. The learned Special Judge-cum-Enquiry Officer convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to suffer R. I. For 12 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default R. I. For six months more, by his judgment dated the 23rd September 1971. The petitioner filed an appeal in the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi which was dismissed on the 19th March 1973. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
2. The prosecution case is that on the 29th March 1965 the petitioner recovered Rs. 500 in cash and Rs. 5G0 by a cheque from the complainant Nawabuddin, out of which only Rs. 500 were deposited in the Government account and the balance of Rs. 500 was misappropriated by him.
3. The defence of the petitioner was that he received only a cheque of Rs. 500 from the complainant and gave a Katcha receipt for the same but in this receipt the word "and" was added by the complainant himself. In sup--port of his contention, the petitioner examined two witnesses, namely, Rasulbux and Gajjan.
4. The prosecution case is supported by the evidence of complainant Nawabuddin. He was corroborated by P. Ws. Qabil Ahmad and Rahim Bux.
5. Mr. Mohammad Hayat Junejo, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that no reliance should have been placed on the evidence of P. Ws. Qabil Ahmad and Rasul Bux on the question of payment as the same was admittedly conspicuous by its absence in their police statements.
6. According to him, both the Courts below have erred in relying on their belated state--ment to this effect. The learned counsel further contended that the defence witnesses, one of whom was a partner of the complainant and the other was his kamdar, have stated the truth and should have been believed.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied than the Courts below have appreciated the evidence of the parties properly. It is true that Qabil Ahmad and Rasul Bux have not stated before the police about the payment of Rs. 500 in cash but that was due to the fact that they were only questioned about the payment by cheque. The receipt has been admitted by the petitioner. He has only challenged that the word "and" was sub--sequently added. The High Court has considered this aspect of the case and found no force in it. Mr. Junejo was unable to persuade us to take a different view. There is no force in the petition. The petition is dismissed.