| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3187 1970 SLD 3187 = 1970 SCMR 808 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 4-D of 1970, decided on 22nd June 1970.
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Salahuddin Ahmed, J
Muhammad A. Aziz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 4-D of 1970, decided on 22nd June 1970.
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Salahuddin Ahmed, J
Muhammad A. Aziz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.
SHAMSUDDIN AHMED-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 409
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, dated the 6th November 1969, in Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1967). Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 409-Criminal misappropria tion-Accused, Cashier in Government Office, withdrawing money but not paying it to official entitled to receive and making entry in cash book showing disbursement in favour of person entitled Legitimate inference, held, rightly drawn that accused dishonestly misappropriated money. Date of hearing : 22nd June 1970. JUDGMENT SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of an order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner was a Cashier at the Government of Pakistan Press, Dacca. He was prosecuted for having withdrawn a sum of Rs. 300 from the Government Provident Fund Account of P. W. 1 Kazi Shamsul Awal, a Lower Division Clerk at the said Press, but instead of having paid the amount to P. W. 1., he misappropriated it. The defence of the petitioner was that he had paid the amount to the Manager of the said Press and P. W. 1 received it from the Manager before P. W. 1 went on leave. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution has failed to prove dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner. It appears that the withdrawal of the aforesaid amount from the Provident Fund Account of P. W. 1 was sanctioned by the Manager and in due course the petitioner encashed the bill for the amount and made an entry in the cash book showing receipt of the money by him. He, however, made a false entry on the payment side .of the cash book showing disbursement of the amount. P. W. 1, however, was never paid the money, and this is evident by the fact that there is no acknowledgment by him on Exh. 3, namely, the bill which had been encashed by the…