Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: Ss. 21 & 409

  Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 21 & 409-Person employed by Undertaking, while it was privately owned, continuing in service after purchase of Undertaking by Government-Public servant.   Sanction for prosecution-Objection to validity of, cannot be allowed at appellate stage-Sanction once proved to have been given-Presumption that it was regularly given-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 112, illus. (e).   S. M. K. Alvi v. The Crown P L D 1953 F C 189 and F. D. Costa v. The State P L D 1959 Dacca 744 ref.   (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409-Thirty-one acts of misappropriation committed within period of one year-Setting out in one charge gross sum of amount misappropriated between first and last date, without specifying each item or exact dates, sufficient-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 222 (2).   Manzoor Elahi v. The State P L D 1960 Kar. 607 and Sailendra Prasad Bose v. Crown P L D 1952 Dacca 81 ref. JUDGMENT   The appellant was convicted under section 409, P. P. C. by the Special Judge-cum-Inquiry Officer, Hyderabad (Late Mr. Muhammad Yakoob Nurnabi) on 26-7-60 and sentenced to suffer R. I. for 4 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000 or in default of payment of fine to suffer further R. I. for 2 years. The amount alleged to have been embezzled by the appellant is said to be Rs. 36,500. The appellant filed this appeal through Advocate but at the time of hearing no Advocate appeared for him and I had to call and hear him personally.   The facts, briefly, are that the appellant was Head-cashier appointed in 1951 in theElectric Supply Undertaking, Hyderabad (Sind) and was there up to and after 1957. From August 1954 to July 1957, he is alleged to have dishonestly mis appropriated Rs. 1,20,275-10-9 from the amounts received by him as Head=cashier. The periods and the amounts were bifurcated for purpose of his trial and the present prosecution against the appellant is in respect of Rs. 36,500 dishonestly mis appropriated by him during the period December 1955, to November 1956.   The first point for consideration is whether the appellant is a public servant. There isno doubt that he is a public servant within…