JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Criminal Accountability
Appeal No.D – 54 of 2019
Present:
Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput
Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah.
Appellant: Suleman
son of Nabi Bux bycaste Mahar.
(Now
confined at Central Prison Sukkur)
Through
Mr. Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro,
Advocate.
The State: Through M/s Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Soomro and Bahawaluddin Shaikh, Special
prosecutors NAB, Sukkur.
Mr. Karim Bux Janwari, Assistant Attorney, General, Pakistan.
Date of hearing: 11-01-2023.
Date of decision: 19 -01-2023.
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J-. The facts
in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl.
Accountability Appeal are that the appellant being Food Inspector when was Incharge of Provincial Reserve Centre at Plot of Ghulam Mustafa, Daharki at Ghotki during year 2009/2010 and 2010-2011 dishonestly and
fraudulently misappropriated 7204 bags containing 903397 Kilograms of wheat,
converted the same into his own use, thereby caused loss to tune of Rs.
24,558,775/- to the Public exchequer, for that he was booked and reported upon
by NAB authorities by way of filing such Reference against him on account of his
default in payment relating to voluntarily return; he was charged accordingly,
which he denied and prosecution to prove it, examined in all six witnesses and then
closed its side. The appellant during course of his examination u/s 342 Cr.P.C, denied the prosecution’s allegations by pleading
innocence by stating that he was forced to sign the blank papers relating to
voluntarily return and due to un-precedent rain, the stock sustained damage and
it was auctioned by the competent authority, he did not examine anyone in his defence or himself on oath. On conclusion of trial, he was convicted
and sentenced by learned Judge, Accountability Court, Sukkur vide judgment
dated 12th April 2019, in following terms;
“ In view of the aforementioned appraisal of evidence
and decision on point No.-i, I am of the humble opinion that the prosecution
has been successful to prove the indictment against accused Suleman
Mahar s/o Nabi Bux Mahar, beyond shadow of reasonable
doubt u/s 9(a) (iii) and (vi) of National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999),
hence, the accused is convicted u/s 265-H(2) Cr.PC
and sentenced u/s 10 of National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), to suffer R.I for 10 years and fine of Rs. 18,407,625/-
(Rupees One Crore Eighty Four Lac Seven thousand Six
Hundred and Twenty Five only only). In case, he fails to pay the fine it shall
be recoverable as arrears of land revenue in terms of section 33-E of National
Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
Since
the accused has been convicted as such he shall forthwith cease to hold public,
office, if any, held by him and further he stands disqualified for a period of
ten years, to be reckoned from the date
he is released after serving the sentence, for seeking or from being elected,
chosen, appointed or nominated as a
member of representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority
or in service of Pakistan or of any province as required u/s 15 (a) of National
Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999). Accused Suleman
Mahas son of Nabi Bux Mahar is also disallowed to
apply for or be granted or allowed any financial facilities in the form of any
loan or advance or other financial accommodation by any Bank of financial
institution owned or controlled by the Government for a period of 10 years from
the date of conviction as required u/s 15 (b) of the Ordinance.
2. The above said judgment is impugned by
the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Crl.
Accountability Appeal.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for
the appellant that the appellant being innocent has been involved in this case
falsely by the NAB authorities; the wheat stock sustained damage on account of
un-precedent rains and liability of the appellant, if any was/is only to the
extent of 5110 wheat bags worth Rs.1,40,52500/- for which he entered into
voluntarily return, which he defaulted due to his poor financial condition and
evidence of the PWs being doubtful in its nature has been believed by learned
trial Court without assigning cogent reasons, therefore, the appellant is
entitled to his acquittal by extending him benefit of doubt.
4. Learned Special Prosecutor NAB and
learned Assistant Attorney General, Pakistan by supporting the impugned
judgment has sought for dismissal of instant Crl.
Accountability Appeal by contending that the appellant by entering into
voluntarily return has admitted his guilt impliedly/expressly and liability
against him is to the extent of 7204 wheat bags.
5. Heard arguments and perused the record.
6. It was stated by PW I/O Atta Muhammad
that on 08-04-2013 he was assigned an inquiry by D.G NAB, Sindh against the
appellant, who at the time of incident was Food Supervisor at Provincial
Reserve Centre at Plot of Ghulam Mustafa, Daharki at District Ghotki. On
24-04-2013 he visited the place of incident, checked the record for Wheat crop
season 2009/2010 and 2010/2011, beside stock, shortage of 5110 wheat bags was noticed
at the site, value whereof was assessed to be Rs.1,40,52500/-. The appellant
appeared before him on 08-05-2013 and became ready to pay the value of the
above wheat as well as the penalty of the shortage of wheat bags; thus he
applied for voluntarily return by making such application; it was supported
with his affidavit; it was approved by D..G NAB, Sindh. The appellant paid no
response, therefore, on 28-02-2014 he was arrested, thereafter, he made down
payment to the extent of 34% of total liability worth Rs. 48,000,00/-
by way of Pay Orders. On payment so made, the appellant was released by
Administrative Judge, Accountability Court, concerned. It was stated by PW I/O Umesh that on account of default in payment relating to voluntarily
return, the enquiry against the appellant was upgraded into investigation. It
was stated by PW I/O Samar Hussain that on
investigation the misappropriation of the wheat bags on part of the appellant
during seasons 2009/2010 was noticed to be 5835 and during season 2010/2011 was
noticed to be 1369, total 7204 wheat bags, the value whereof with penalty was assessed
to be Rs.24.558 million rupees. The number of the wheat bags so misappropriated
by the appellant at the relevant time was confirmed to be 7204 by PW Rahul Koraj Malani, the then District Food
Officer, Sukkur. The PWs so examined by the
prosecution have stood by their version on all material points, there appears
no reason to disbelieve them most particularly, when the appellant himself has
admitted his guilt by entering into voluntarily return by filing such
application, which was duly supported his affidavit; as such he could not absolve
him of such liability under the pretext that he was forced to sign voluntarily
return proceedings. The liability of the appellant obviously is to the extent
of 7204 wheat bags which the prosecution has been able to prove against him by
bringing on record cogent evidence. The appellant has failed to examine him or
anyone in his defence to prove his innocence,
therefore, his simple plea of innocence in circumstances of the case deserves
to be ignored as an afterthought.
In case of M. Anwar Saifullah
Khan v. State (PLD 2002 Lahore 458) it has been observed by Hon’ble High Court that;
“20. Misuse of authority means the use of authority or
power in a manner contrary to law or reflects an unreasonable departure from
known precedents or custom. Every misuse of authority is not culpable. To
establish the charge of misuse of authority, the prosecution has to establish
the two essential ingredients of the alleged crime i.e
‘mens rea” and “actus reus”. If either of these
is missing no offence is made out. Mens rea or guilty mind, in context of misuse of authority, would require that the accused had the
knowledge that he had no authority to act in the manner he acted or that it was
against law or practice in vogue but despite that he issued the instruction or
passed the order”
7. In
view of the facts and reasons discussed above, it could be concluded safely
that no case for interference with impugned judgment is made out before this
Court, by way of instant Crl. Accountability Appeal,
it is dismissed accordingly.
Judge
Judge
Nasim/P.A