Supreme Court Acquits Public Servant in Salary Misappropriation Case Due to Lack of Evidence – 2020 SCMR 321.
عنوان: سپریم کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ: شواہد کی کمی پر سرکاری ملازم بری – 2020 SCMR 321
مقدمے کی تفصیل:
عدالتی کارروائی:
فیصلہ:
نتیجہ:
Must read judgement
Side Appellant : Dr. WAQAR HAMEED
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 409, 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, criminal misconduct---Reappraisal of evidence--- Allegations against the accused and co-accused was that they fraudulently withdrew the salaries of complainant from the Treasury with the intention to misappropriate the same, however, when the matter came into the knowledge of the concerned authorities, they deposited the amount back in the Treasury---Held, that accused and his co-accused (since acquitted by the High Court) had been acquitted by the Trial Court for charges under Ss. 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. and such acquittal had not been challenged by the State or the complainant any further, therefore, the main question before the Court was whether the provisions of S. 409, P.P.C. were attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case---Prosecution had not alleged that any property was ever entrusted to the accused, which was 'misappropriated' by him---Evidence brought on record in such regard by the prosecution mainly consisted of two pieces; first, withdrawal of salaries of complainant; and secondly, its re-deposit in the Treasury---Complainant, however, did not disclose as to how he came to know that his salaries had been withdrawn---Though a reference to a certain token number had been given by the complainant in his statement recorded during trial regarding the withdrawal of his salaries but there was nothing on record to show in whose favour said token was issued by the concerned office---Coming to the second part i.e. re-deposit of salaries of complainant, it was the case of prosecution that same were deposited through a challan form---No effort was made by the investigating agency for getting the opinion of handwriting expert regarding alleged signatures of accused on said challan form---Perusal of statement of accused recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C. showed that neither any question was put to him regarding the token through which the complainant's salary was withdrawn nor any question was asked with reference to the challan form through which the money was re-deposited in the Treasury---During investigation a number of documents were taken into possession by the investigating agency, but accused was not confronted with a single one (in order to know his version) by the Trial Court while recording his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court did not frame any separate charge against the accused for offence under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which approach was not legally correct, as the Trial Court was required to frame separate charge for each distinct offence---Moreover, while convicting the petitioner under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the Trial Court had not discussed a single piece of evidence to reach the conclusion that accused had committed criminal misconduct---Prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Accused was acquitted of the charge framed against him.