High Court Division :
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
ANM Bashir Ullah J
Judgment
May 18th, 2014.
Abdul Bari (Md) …….
………Convict-Appellant
State ………Respondents*
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)
Sections 5(1)(2)
After clear misappropriation of the government fund, depositing of the money later on will not absolve the appellant from the charge of misappropriation. After misappropriation, any attempt to repair the same depositing the amount of misappropriated found will not let him off from the charge and if any lenient view is taken upon the same ‘that will be sheer indulgence to the offender to be more dangerous and aggressive in committing the further offence of the same kind; …… (30)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Sections 464, 465 & 467
The DO letter was a false document which was created to misappropriate 1,000 Kgs wheats and this appellant is one of the author of the said document as the same was signed by him along with others. In view of sections 464 and 465 of the Penal Code, the said document is forged documents and since the appellant is one of the author of the document so his conviction and sentence under section 467 of the Penal Code appears to be legal and fair. ………(33)
Zahidul Bari-For the Appellant.
Ahmed Sohel, Advocate-For the ACC.
Salma Rahman, AAG-For the State.
Judgment
This criminal appeal, at the instance of convict appellant Md Abdul Bari is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 18-2-2009 passed by the Special Judge, Rangpur in Special Case No. 22 of 2003 arising out of Gaibandha Sadar PS case No. 16 dated 21-2-1995 corresponding to GR No. 14 of 1995 (Gaibandha) convicting the appellant under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Taka 10,000 (ten thousand) in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months more and also convicting the appellant under sections 467/109 of the Penal Code sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Taka 10,000 (ten thousand) in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six (6) months and both the sentence shall run concurrently.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal, in short, is that the Deputy Commissioner, Gaibandha by a letter dated 20-11-1994 informed the Director General of Bureau of Anti-Corruption (in short, the BAC) that the food articles at a worth of Taka 50,00,000 (fifty lakh) have been misappropriated in the year 1992 by the Dealers and Millers inconnivance of the staffs of the Food office in his district Gaibandha.
3. The said information was registered as entry No. 194 of 1994 and the same was endorsed to Md Sazzad Hossain, District Anti Corruption Officer, (in short, the DACO) of the BAC, Dhaka who on completion of the enquiry lodged the First Information Report (in short, the FIR) on 20-2-1995 with the Gaibandha Police Station alleging inter-alia that Mr Azizur Rahman, the proprietor of Dewan Mills presented forged treasury challans of depositing money before Md Rezaul Huq, Thana Controller of Food (in short, the TCF) Gaibandha Sadar and the said Rezaul Huq on the basis of the said forged treasury challans issued Delivery Order (in short, the DO) No. 1056305 dated 10-10-1992 to deliver 1,000 KGs wheat at a worth of Taka 7,340 in favour of accused Mr Azizur Rahman and Mr. Azizur Rahman pursuant to the said DO withdrew the said wheats without depositing its price to the government treasury.
4. On the basis of the said FIR Gaibandha Police Station case No. 16 dated 21-2-1995 corresponding to GR No. 114 of 1995 were started. The case was investigated by 5 investigating officers of the BAC and the 5th IO submitted report recommending the trial of the present appellant along with 2 other accused and ultimately the accused were put on trial before the Special Judge, Rangpur. On 6-9-2003 charge was framed under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to which the present convict appellant pleaded his not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in order to prove the charge examined 12 witnesses and tendered one witness and after completion of the recording of the evidence, the present convict appellant was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when he repeated his innocence and disclosed his unwillness to adduce any defence witness.
6. The defence case, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses is the simple case of innocence and false implication. There appears no definite defence case on the part of the convict appellant though he was one of the office bearer of the food office, Gaibandha.
7. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence particularly the oral evidence of 12 witnesses and the documentary evidences adduced by the prosecution found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The convict appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with said judgment and the order of conviction and sentence preferred this appeal.
8. Mr. Zahidul Bari, the learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant supporting the appeal submits that the trial Court without any proper assessment of the evidence and the facts of the case found the accused guilty.
The trial Court did not at all consider that the prosecution has measurably failed to show as to who had taken the wheats from the godown and there is nothing in the record to show that this appellant or any body else on his behalf had taken the wheats from the god own in order to misappropriate the same. So, there cannot be any charge of misappropriation of the wheats by this accused as there is no evidence of delivering of wheats in his favour. He also submits that since this appellant had no involvement with the occurrence of this case he was not named in the FIR even.
9. The learned Advocate next submits that it has been alleged by the prosecution that this appellant in connivance of the other accused relying on some forged scroll reportedly sent from the Sonali Bank, Gaibandha issued DO letter but the prosecution though examined PW 12 Md Zahurul Alam Gani, an officer of Sonali Bank to prove the scroll as forged but by his such evidence, it had not been proved that the scroll was forged.
10. He categorically submits that there is nothing in the record to show that the scroll was not sent from the Bank. The prosecution did not submit the peon books by which generally any paper is sent to the food office from the Bank and without examining of the said peon books it is always difficult to say that the scroll was not sent from the Bank.
11. The learned Advocate also submits that the convict appellant Md Abdul Bari was not entrusted with the duty to verify the official documents as to whether money has been deposited in the treasury or the scroll of the bank is genuine or not. He usually used to render his duty under the control and guidance of TCF Rezaul Huq and in the normal course of his business he is to follow the order and direction of TCF and in this particular case on his (TCF) direction he (the appellant) issued the DO letter on 10-10-1992.
So if any wrong is being done in connection of the occurrence of present case that has been done by another accused but not by this accused Abdul Bari. He just in order to carry out the order of a senior officer might have issued the DO letter but he had no intention to misappropriate the government wheats as alleged.
12. Lastly the learned Advocate submits that in the instant case it has been found that though the DO letter was issued without having any deposit of money as against the said DO letter but ultimately within a couple of day, the money has been deposited, as a result, the Government ultimately did not sustain any monetary loss. So, on that count of the matter, the accused should have not been held responsible and guilty for any misappropriation of the Government fund. So, the judgment and the order of conviction and sentence of the trial Court are not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside acquitting the convict appellant from the case.
13. On the other hand, Mr Ahmed Sohel, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 2 assailing the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellant and also supporting the judgment of the trial Court as well as the prosecution case submits that admittedly appellant has been serving in the concern food office as Sub-Inspector of Food and before issuing of the DO letter he had the opportunity to be sure whether the money has been deposited or not but since he in connivance of the other staffs of the office got the plan to misappropriate the wheats he without verifying anything issued the DO letter relying on some forged scroll papers. So, the appellant cannot be escaped from the liability of the charges brought against him.
14. He further submits that the appellant being one of the official staff of the office in question was very much acquainted with the practice and procedure of the office work. He did not assert at trial that the money was deposited duly against the DO letter issued by them. In fact, the accused did not deny any of the allegation brought against him at trial. The prosecution adducing and examining 13 witnesses has been able to prove successfully that the appellant inconnivance with the others having been fully aware about the non-deposit of money issued the DO letter and thereby misappropriated the amount in question and the trial Court on the right assessment of the evidence and other materials on record found him guilty and sentenced him accordingly. Thus the judgment of the trial Court did not call for any interference from this Court.
15. I have considered the above arguments advanced by the learned Advocates of both the parties with profound attention and have gone through the materials on record including the Lower Courts Record.
16. It is admitted that the appellant Abdul Bari was Sub-Inspector of Food at Gaibandha, Thana Food Office. The chief allegation was brought against him and others that he inconnivance of the other accused issued the DO letter on 10-10-1992 causing a misappropriation of 1,000 Kgs wheats.
17. The DO letter has been marked as exhibit 2(ka) at trial. In this appeal the learned Advocate for the appellant did not deny the compilation of the DO letter in question by this appellant but the learned Advocate referring the evidence of PW 7 and using the same as shield tried to save the appellant from the liability of compilation of the DO letter. He putting much emphasis on the evidence of PW? Bimol Kumar Madak argued that when the Thana Controller of Food (TCF) on going through the Bank scroll and challans became satisfied of everything had asked the Sub-inspector of food to issue the DO letter and since at the time of occurrence Rezaul Hug was the TCF he being satisfied of all had asked the appellant Abdul Bari to issue the DO letter and accordingly he (Abdul Bari) issued the same.
Though the arguments of learned Advocate for the appellant undoubtedly appears to be very much appetizing and lucid that the appellant at the behest of the another accused Rezaul Huq had issued the DO letter. But if we put our eyes on the evidence of PWs 2, 7, 8 and 9 it will be found that the alleged misappropriation was committed by this appellant along with others and his role was very much prominent among others.
18. PW 2 SM Sahidur Rahman, one of the investigating officer of the case stated in his evidence in the following ways.
Òe¨vs‡Ki ¯Œj ch©v‡jvPbv K‡i †`Lv hvq 10-10-92 Zvwi‡L †`Iqvb wgjm Gi bv‡g †Kvb UvKv Pvjvbg~‡j Rgv nqwb| D³ Pvjvb f~qv| Pvjv‡bi g~jKwc Avmvgx Avt evixi wbKU n‡Z Rã Kiv nq, hvnv †`Iqvb wgjm Gi nv‡Z _vKvi K_v| wW, I Bmy¨ Kivi A‡bK c‡i Pvjv‡bi UvKv c~bivq e¨vs‡K Rgv Kiv n‡q‡Q| Avmvgx †iRvDj nK D³ wW, I Aby‡gv`b I Bmy¨ K‡i‡Qb| Avmvgx Avãyj evix e¨vs‡Ki wcIb ey‡S ¯^vÿi K‡i ¯Œj I Pvjvb MÖnY K‡i‡Qb g‡g© wg_¨v Z_¨ w`‡q‡Q| wZwb B”QvK…Zfv‡e Pvjv‡bi h_v_©Zv hvPvB bv K‡iB DO Bm~¨ K‡i‡Qb| Gfv‡e AvmvgxØq ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡m 1 †gt Ub Mg D‡Ëvjb K‡i Dnvi g~j¨ eve` 7340 UvKv AvZ¥mvr K‡i‡Qb| †MŠibvivqb mvnv Z`šÍKv‡j 2-12-1997 Zvwi‡L 2 cvZv †UªRvix Pvjvb Rã K‡ib| Bnv †mB Rã ZvwjKv| wZwb 8-10-98 Zvwi‡L 1 cvZv Gj, BD G Rã K‡ib| Bnv †mB Rã ZvwjKv cÖt 6| Bnv 2-12-1997 Zvwi‡Li Rã ZvwjKv cÖt 7| Bnv RãK…Z Pvjvb I Gj, BD G cÖt 6(K), 7(K)|…..Ó
19. From the above evidence of PW 2 it appears that though the seizure list of Challans has been reportedly marked as exhibit 7 in the evidence but in fact that has been marked as exhibits 7/1 and 2(two) Challans dated 18-10-1992 has been reportedly marked in the evidence as exhibit 7(ka) but the same has been actually marked as exhibits 7(ka) and 7(ka)1. However, be that as it may, it appears that the DO letter was issued on the basis of fake or non-existent Challans by the appellant and others and for their safety after 8 days on 18-10-1992 of the issuance of the DO letter the money was deposited in the bank through exhibit Nos. 7(ka) and 7(ka)1. The evidence of PW 2 shows that the Challans were sized from the custody of the appellant though the same should have been in the custody of Dewan Mills Limited and it would be more clear if we go through the seizure list of the Challans, the exhibit No.7 /1, which runs as follows.
Rã ZvwjKv t-
m~Î t- MvBevÜ _vbv gvgjv bs 16 Zvs 21-2-95
1| Rã Kivi Zvs I mgq t 2-12-97, 13.40 NwUKvq|
2| Rã Kivi ¯’vb t wW G we Awdm, MvBevÜ
3| Rã Kiv nBj Kvnvi wbKU nB‡Z t
†gvt Avt evix, Dc-Lv`¨ cwi`k©K, MvBevÜv m`i _vbv, MvBevÜv wcZv-g”Z e`i DwÏb Avnv¤§` mvs †MvWvDb †ivW, MvBevÜv Dc¯’vc‡Ki g‡Z-
4| Rã K…Z †iKW© c‡Îi weeiY t
†gmvm© †`Iqvb wgj‡mi 184 Lv‡Z UvKv Rgv †`Iqvi 18-10-92Bs Zvwi‡Li †UªRvix Pvjv‡bi
5| mvÿx‡`i ¯^vÿi t-
(1) †gvt Qvgvby¾vgvb
Awdm mnKvix MvBevÜv, wW G we|
Avwg Rã K‡i wbR †ndvR‡Z jBjvg|
¯^vt A¯úó
2-12-97
†MŠibvivqb mvnv
cwi`k©K
wWGwe, MvBevÜv
20. From the evidence of PW 2 as well as from the seizure list, exhibit No.7/1 it reveals that the appellant misappropriating 1000 kgs wheats subsequently on 18-10-1992 deposited money through challans, exhibit 7(ka) and 7(ka)1 and it has become more evident when we find that the copy of challans have been recovered from this appellant.
21. The involvement of this appellant with the occurrence of this case would be more visible from the evidence of PWs 7, 8 and 9 also. PW 7 Bimal Kumar Madak, who was Food Inspector, at DC Food Office, Gaibanda at the relevant time stated in the following ways:
H mg‡q Dc‡Rjv Lv`¨ wbqš¿K (TCF) wQ‡jb †iRvDj nK I Dc-Lv`¨ cwi`k©K wQ‡jb Avmvgx Avt evix| Dc‡Rjv Lv`¨ wbqš¿K e¨vsK ¯Œj, Pvjvb cixÿv K‡ib Ges Zvi wb‡`©‡k DO †j‡Lb| 10-10-1992 Zvwi‡L 1056305 bs DO Gi †jLv Avmvgx Avt evixi Ges Dnv‡Z Zvi mwn Av‡Q| G‡Z Avmvgx †iRvDj n‡KiI mwn Av‡Q| Pvjvb bs 261 †Z Avt evixi mwn Av‡Q| Avwg Zv‡`i nv‡Zi †jLv I mwn wPwb|Ó
22. The above evidence of PW 7 shows that the challan Nos. 261 dated 18-10-1992, exhibit Nos. 7(ka) and 7(ka)1 were also signed by this appellant and the DO letter was written by him and this important evidence of PW 7 was never controverted till now. The PW 7 is very much competent person to depose in this case as he was a departmental staff of the relevant Food office at the relevant time.
23. PW 8 Md Sawkat Ali is another important witness of this case who had served at Gaibanda Sadar Food office at the relevant time in the post of Food Inspector who stated in the following ways:
H mg‡q Pvjvb cv‡ki `vwqZ¡ wQj Dc-Lv`¨ cwi`k©K Avmvgx Avãyj evixi Ges DO †jLvi `vwqZ¡ wQj ‡hŠ_fv‡e Avãyj evix I AvLZviDwχbi| e¨vsK ¯Œj hvPvB‡qi `vwqZ¡ wQj Avmvgx †iRvDj n‡Ki| Avwg †hvM`v‡bi ci †`L‡Z cvB wgjviMY Mg Zz‡j wiUvY© w`Z bv| 10-10-92 Zvwi‡L wiUvY© QvovB DO Bmy¨ Kiv nq| GB Zvwi‡L †Kvb UvKv Rgv nqwb| c‡i 18-10-92 Zvwi‡L Rgv n‡q‡Q| 10-10-92 Zvwi‡Li DO ‡Z (cÖt 2/K) Ges Avãyj evix I †iRvDj n‡Ki mwn Av‡Q| MZ 18-10-92 Zvwi‡Li Pvjvb {cÖt 7(K)-7(K)1} Avãyj evixi mwn Av‡Q| e¨vs‡K UvKv Rgv QvovB f~qv Pvjv‡bi gva¨‡g DO Bmy¨ Kiv nw”Qj Ges cieZx©‡Z Pvjv‡b D³ UvKv Rgv Kiv n‡q‡Q|
24. From the evidence of PW 8 it appears that this appellant Abdul Bari was entrusted with the duties to pass the Challans and to prepare the DO letter and this important documents were the essential tools for misappropriation of the wheats and the appellant had the official responsibility to prepare the said documents and this definite prosecution case has not been denied by the appellant in the cross examination of PW 8. The appellant using his official capacity and position and having the full knowledge of non deposit of money on 10-10-1992 had issued the DO letter on 10-10-1992 and later on to coverage the occurrence deposited the money on 18-10-1992.
25. PW 9 HM Kamrul Islam, another officer of the Food Office at Gaibandha stated that the Challans were passed by Abdul Bari and this evidence has not been controverted by the appellant. His evidence runs as follows:-
Avwg 1990 n‡Z 1993 Gi gvSvgvwS ch©šÍ MvBevÜv LSD †Z fvicÖvß Kg©KZ©v wnmv‡e Kg©iZ wQjvg| H mg‡q ‡iRvDj nK _vbv Lv`¨ wbqš¿K wnmv‡e, Avãyj evix Dc-Lv`¨ cwi`k©K wnmv‡e I AvLZvi DwÏb Awdm mnKvix wnmv‡e Kg©iZ wQ‡jb| cÖ`k©bx 2(K) wPwýZ DO †Z Bmy¨Kvix wnmv‡e †iRvDj nK I Avãyj evixi mwn Av‡Q| cÖvt 7(K)-7(K) 1 wPwýZ Pvjvbg~‡j 18-10-92 Zvwi‡L UvKv Rgv n‡q‡Q| D³ Pvjv‡b Avãyj evixi mwn Av‡Q cvkKvix wnmv‡e| cÖ_‡g f~qv Pvjv‡bi gva¨‡g DO Bmy¨ Kiv nq|
26. From the evidence of PW 9 it appears that the accused Abdul Bari had the official responsibility to pass the Challans for depositing the money before issuing the DO letter. So he had the full scope to know whether money was deposited or not before issuing the DO letter, exhibit No. 2(ka) ) on 10-10-1992. It ultimately means and reavels that no money can be deposited through any challan without the approval of the appellant at the relevant time.
Since the appellant was also officially involved in depositing the money through the challan before issuing any DO letter, so he must have the definite knowledge whether money was deposited duly or not in the Government fund as against the DO letter dated 10-10-1992, exhibit No. 2(ka). So, it is difficult for this Court to place any reliance on the argument of the learned Advocate for the appellant that this appellant though issued the DO letter marked as exhibit 2(ka) but he had done it at the instance of another accused Rezaul Huq. Since this accused had also an important role in passing the Challan and issuing the DO letter so, he had the opportunity to know whether money had been deposited in connection of the DO letter which they issued. So it clearly proves the participation of the appellant in the issuing of the DO letter having full knowledge that money had not been deposited duly in the Government fund in connection of the particular DO.
(To be continued)
27. The learned Advocate for the appellant also submits that before issuing the DO letter by the Thana Food Officer they usually go through the Bank scroll and when they are satisfied that the Bank had admitted the deposit of the money, then only the Thana Food Office issue the DO letter for the delivery of wheats. The learned Advocate for the appellant very categorically submits that though the PW 12 Md Zohurul Alam Gani testified that he was entrusted at the relevant time to write the Bank scroll but he did not write and send the Bank scroll related to the disputed DO letter and in the estimation of the leacned Advocate this evidence is not sufficient to prove that the exhibit No. 4(ka)3 was forged.
28. In my consideration, the evidence of PW 12 in order to prove the disputed Bank scroll as forged is more than sufficient because he was the right person who was entrusted with at the relevant time to write the Bank scroll to say whether the disputed Bank scroll exhibit 4(ka)3 was written by him or not. His evidence run as follows:
ÒAvwg MZ 9-4-92 n‡Z b‡f¤^i/92 ch©šÍ †mvbvjx e¨vsK MvBevÜv kvLvq Dc-wnmv‡e iÿb c‡` Kg©iZ wQjvg| H mg‡q Avwg e¨vsK ¯Œj †jLvi KvR KiZvg| 25-7-92, 3-8-92, 10-10-92 Zvwi‡Li e¨vsK ¯Œj¸‡jv Avgvi nv‡Zi †jLv bq| G¸‡jv‡Z cÖ`Ë ¯^vÿi Avgvi cwiwPZ bq| Z‡e 15-10-92, 18-10-92, 24-10-92 Zvwi‡Li ¯Œj¸‡jv‡Z ZrKvjxb g¨v‡bRvi ‡iRvDj Kwi‡gi mwn Av‡Q | Avwg Zvi mwn wPwb|Ó
29. PW 2 categorically said that the Bank scroll dated 10-10-1992, exhibit No. 4(ka)3 was not written by him. Now, it is found that this scroll is forged which was received by this appellant in order to issue DO letter. PW 12 also said that the Bank scroll dated 18-10-1992, exhibit No. 3(ka)2) by which money was deposited in the Bank in the name of Dewan Mills was written by him. In my consideration PW 12 is the most competent person to say which scroll was issued by him. So, in my consideration by the evidence of PW12, the prosecution has been able to prove that this appellant had issued the DO letter relying on some forged and false Bank scroll on 10-10-1992.
30. The learned Advocate for the appellant argued before me that after the discovery of the occurrence of this case the money have been deposited by this accused and others and the challans of the same were recovered from them, so, he should not be held guilty for the alleged misappropriation. In my consideration after clear misappropriation of the government fund, depositing of the money later on will not absolve the appellant from the charge of misappropriation. After misappropriation, any attempt to repair the same depositing the amount of misappropriated found will not let him off from the charge and if any lenient view is taken upon the same that will be sheer indulgence to the offender to be more dangerous and aggressive in committing the further offence of the same kind. So, I find it difficult to place any importance on this fact of the case.
31. The total prosecution case is concentrated whether this appellant inconnivance with others had issued the DO letter for the delivery of wheats without having any deposit for the same and the said allegations have been proved by the DO letter itself and also for the evidence of PW 7. PW 7 testified that the DO letter dated 10-10-92 was written by accused Abdul Bari and signed by him and Rezaul Huq and he knows their signatures. There appears no cross-examination of PW 7 of his evidence and there is nothing to discard or to disbelieve his such evidence in any way.
32. More over, the very plain and simple prosecution case as brought against this appellant that he inconnivance with the others in order to misappropriate the wheats issued DO letter having knowledge of no deposit for the same has not been challenged by him (appellant) in any manner. He being an important office bearer of the said office could have asserted that the money was deposited duly or he had issued the challan and DO letters on being misdirected but nothing has been asserted by this appellant. The accused at trial was totally silent. So I find it difficult to disbelieve the prosecution case as well as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
33. The trial Court on proper scanning of the evidence found him guilty under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention and Corruption Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Taka 10,000. The trial Court also found him guilty under sections 467/109 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Taka 10,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. From the discussion made above it has been found that the DO letter exhibit No. 2(ka) was a false document which was created to misappropriate 1,000 Kgs wheats and this appellant is one of the author of the said document as the same was signed by him along with others. So in view of sections 464 and 465 of the Penal Code, the said document is forged documents and since the appellant is one of the author of the document so, his conviction and sentence under section 467 of the Penal Code appears to be legal and fair. It is also fact that this appellant has the legal right and authority to prepare the genuine DO letter but the exhibit No. 2(ka) was not genuine document which was prepared without having any deposit within the knowledge of the appellant and the appellant in order to misappropriate the government wheats using his official capacity created the forged DO letter. So conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 647 also did not call for any interference from this Court.
34. The trial Court also directed to run the substantive sentences concurrently. In fact, the trial Court took very lenient view in sentencing the appellant and all the legal facilities available in the hands of the trial Court was also given to the appellant. I find no point to interfere in the conviction and sentence of the appellant as he has been already blessed by the trial Court in all the possible ways. So, the judgment of the trial Court did not call for any interference from this Court.
35. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
The convict appellant is directed to surrender in the trial Court within l(one) calendar month from the dated of reading the judgment there to undergone his remaining sentence.
Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial Court along with Lower Courts Record for information and necessary action.
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
ANM Bashir Ullah J
Judgment
May 18th, 2014.
Abdul Bari (Md) …….
………Convict-Appellant
State ………Respondents*
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)
Sections 5(1)(2)
After clear misappropriation of the government fund, depositing of the money later on will not absolve the appellant from the charge of misappropriation. After misappropriation, any attempt to repair the same depositing the amount of misappropriated found will not let him off from the charge and if any lenient view is taken upon the same ‘that will be sheer indulgence to the offender to be more dangerous and aggressive in committing the further offence of the same kind; …… (30)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Sections 464, 465 & 467
The DO letter was a false document which was created to misappropriate 1,000 Kgs wheats and this appellant is one of the author of the said document as the same was signed by him along with others. In view of sections 464 and 465 of the Penal Code, the said document is forged documents and since the appellant is one of the author of the document so his conviction and sentence under section 467 of the Penal Code appears to be legal and fair. ………(33)
Zahidul Bari-For the Appellant.
Ahmed Sohel, Advocate-For the ACC.
Salma Rahman, AAG-For the State.
Judgment
This criminal appeal, at the instance of convict appellant Md Abdul Bari is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 18-2-2009 passed by the Special Judge, Rangpur in Special Case No. 22 of 2003 arising out of Gaibandha Sadar PS case No. 16 dated 21-2-1995 corresponding to GR No. 14 of 1995 (Gaibandha) convicting the appellant under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Taka 10,000 (ten thousand) in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months more and also convicting the appellant under sections 467/109 of the Penal Code sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Taka 10,000 (ten thousand) in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six (6) months and both the sentence shall run concurrently.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal, in short, is that the Deputy Commissioner, Gaibandha by a letter dated 20-11-1994 informed the Director General of Bureau of Anti-Corruption (in short, the BAC) that the food articles at a worth of Taka 50,00,000 (fifty lakh) have been misappropriated in the year 1992 by the Dealers and Millers inconnivance of the staffs of the Food office in his district Gaibandha.
3. The said information was registered as entry No. 194 of 1994 and the same was endorsed to Md Sazzad Hossain, District Anti Corruption Officer, (in short, the DACO) of the BAC, Dhaka who on completion of the enquiry lodged the First Information Report (in short, the FIR) on 20-2-1995 with the Gaibandha Police Station alleging inter-alia that Mr Azizur Rahman, the proprietor of Dewan Mills presented forged treasury challans of depositing money before Md Rezaul Huq, Thana Controller of Food (in short, the TCF) Gaibandha Sadar and the said Rezaul Huq on the basis of the said forged treasury challans issued Delivery Order (in short, the DO) No. 1056305 dated 10-10-1992 to deliver 1,000 KGs wheat at a worth of Taka 7,340 in favour of accused Mr Azizur Rahman and Mr. Azizur Rahman pursuant to the said DO withdrew the said wheats without depositing its price to the government treasury.
4. On the basis of the said FIR Gaibandha Police Station case No. 16 dated 21-2-1995 corresponding to GR No. 114 of 1995 were started. The case was investigated by 5 investigating officers of the BAC and the 5th IO submitted report recommending the trial of the present appellant along with 2 other accused and ultimately the accused were put on trial before the Special Judge, Rangpur. On 6-9-2003 charge was framed under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to which the present convict appellant pleaded his not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in order to prove the charge examined 12 witnesses and tendered one witness and after completion of the recording of the evidence, the present convict appellant was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when he repeated his innocence and disclosed his unwillness to adduce any defence witness.
6. The defence case, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses is the simple case of innocence and false implication. There appears no definite defence case on the part of the convict appellant though he was one of the office bearer of the food office, Gaibandha.
7. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence particularly the oral evidence of 12 witnesses and the documentary evidences adduced by the prosecution found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The convict appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with said judgment and the order of conviction and sentence preferred this appeal.
8. Mr. Zahidul Bari, the learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant supporting the appeal submits that the trial Court without any proper assessment of the evidence and the facts of the case found the accused guilty.
The trial Court did not at all consider that the prosecution has measurably failed to show as to who had taken the wheats from the godown and there is nothing in the record to show that this appellant or any body else on his behalf had taken the wheats from the god own in order to misappropriate the same. So, there cannot be any charge of misappropriation of the wheats by this accused as there is no evidence of delivering of wheats in his favour. He also submits that since this appellant had no involvement with the occurrence of this case he was not named in the FIR even.
9. The learned Advocate next submits that it has been alleged by the prosecution that this appellant in connivance of the other accused relying on some forged scroll reportedly sent from the Sonali Bank, Gaibandha issued DO letter but the prosecution though examined PW 12 Md Zahurul Alam Gani, an officer of Sonali Bank to prove the scroll as forged but by his such evidence, it had not been proved that the scroll was forged.
10. He categorically submits that there is nothing in the record to show that the scroll was not sent from the Bank. The prosecution did not submit the peon books by which generally any paper is sent to the food office from the Bank and without examining of the said peon books it is always difficult to say that the scroll was not sent from the Bank.
11. The learned Advocate also submits that the convict appellant Md Abdul Bari was not entrusted with the duty to verify the official documents as to whether money has been deposited in the treasury or the scroll of the bank is genuine or not. He usually used to render his duty under the control and guidance of TCF Rezaul Huq and in the normal course of his business he is to follow the order and direction of TCF and in this particular case on his (TCF) direction he (the appellant) issued the DO letter on 10-10-1992.
So if any wrong is being done in connection of the occurrence of present case that has been done by another accused but not by this accused Abdul Bari. He just in order to carry out the order of a senior officer might have issued the DO letter but he had no intention to misappropriate the government wheats as alleged.
12. Lastly the learned Advocate submits that in the instant case it has been found that though the DO letter was issued without having any deposit of money as against the said DO letter but ultimately within a couple of day, the money has been deposited, as a result, the Government ultimately did not sustain any monetary loss. So, on that count of the matter, the accused should have not been held responsible and guilty for any misappropriation of the Government fund. So, the judgment and the order of conviction and sentence of the trial Court are not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside acquitting the convict appellant from the case.
13. On the other hand, Mr Ahmed Sohel, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 2 assailing the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellant and also supporting the judgment of the trial Court as well as the prosecution case submits that admittedly appellant has been serving in the concern food office as Sub-Inspector of Food and before issuing of the DO letter he had the opportunity to be sure whether the money has been deposited or not but since he in connivance of the other staffs of the office got the plan to misappropriate the wheats he without verifying anything issued the DO letter relying on some forged scroll papers. So, the appellant cannot be escaped from the liability of the charges brought against him.
14. He further submits that the appellant being one of the official staff of the office in question was very much acquainted with the practice and procedure of the office work. He did not assert at trial that the money was deposited duly against the DO letter issued by them. In fact, the accused did not deny any of the allegation brought against him at trial. The prosecution adducing and examining 13 witnesses has been able to prove successfully that the appellant inconnivance with the others having been fully aware about the non-deposit of money issued the DO letter and thereby misappropriated the amount in question and the trial Court on the right assessment of the evidence and other materials on record found him guilty and sentenced him accordingly. Thus the judgment of the trial Court did not call for any interference from this Court.
15. I have considered the above arguments advanced by the learned Advocates of both the parties with profound attention and have gone through the materials on record including the Lower Courts Record.
16. It is admitted that the appellant Abdul Bari was Sub-Inspector of Food at Gaibandha, Thana Food Office. The chief allegation was brought against him and others that he inconnivance of the other accused issued the DO letter on 10-10-1992 causing a misappropriation of 1,000 Kgs wheats.
17. The DO letter has been marked as exhibit 2(ka) at trial. In this appeal the learned Advocate for the appellant did not deny the compilation of the DO letter in question by this appellant but the learned Advocate referring the evidence of PW 7 and using the same as shield tried to save the appellant from the liability of compilation of the DO letter. He putting much emphasis on the evidence of PW? Bimol Kumar Madak argued that when the Thana Controller of Food (TCF) on going through the Bank scroll and challans became satisfied of everything had asked the Sub-inspector of food to issue the DO letter and since at the time of occurrence Rezaul Hug was the TCF he being satisfied of all had asked the appellant Abdul Bari to issue the DO letter and accordingly he (Abdul Bari) issued the same.
Though the arguments of learned Advocate for the appellant undoubtedly appears to be very much appetizing and lucid that the appellant at the behest of the another accused Rezaul Huq had issued the DO letter. But if we put our eyes on the evidence of PWs 2, 7, 8 and 9 it will be found that the alleged misappropriation was committed by this appellant along with others and his role was very much prominent among others.
18. PW 2 SM Sahidur Rahman, one of the investigating officer of the case stated in his evidence in the following ways.
Òe¨vs‡Ki ¯Œj ch©v‡jvPbv K‡i †`Lv hvq 10-10-92 Zvwi‡L †`Iqvb wgjm Gi bv‡g †Kvb UvKv Pvjvbg~‡j Rgv nqwb| D³ Pvjvb f~qv| Pvjv‡bi g~jKwc Avmvgx Avt evixi wbKU n‡Z Rã Kiv nq, hvnv †`Iqvb wgjm Gi nv‡Z _vKvi K_v| wW, I Bmy¨ Kivi A‡bK c‡i Pvjv‡bi UvKv c~bivq e¨vs‡K Rgv Kiv n‡q‡Q| Avmvgx †iRvDj nK D³ wW, I Aby‡gv`b I Bmy¨ K‡i‡Qb| Avmvgx Avãyj evix e¨vs‡Ki wcIb ey‡S ¯^vÿi K‡i ¯Œj I Pvjvb MÖnY K‡i‡Qb g‡g© wg_¨v Z_¨ w`‡q‡Q| wZwb B”QvK…Zfv‡e Pvjv‡bi h_v_©Zv hvPvB bv K‡iB DO Bm~¨ K‡i‡Qb| Gfv‡e AvmvgxØq ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡m 1 †gt Ub Mg D‡Ëvjb K‡i Dnvi g~j¨ eve` 7340 UvKv AvZ¥mvr K‡i‡Qb| †MŠibvivqb mvnv Z`šÍKv‡j 2-12-1997 Zvwi‡L 2 cvZv †UªRvix Pvjvb Rã K‡ib| Bnv †mB Rã ZvwjKv| wZwb 8-10-98 Zvwi‡L 1 cvZv Gj, BD G Rã K‡ib| Bnv †mB Rã ZvwjKv cÖt 6| Bnv 2-12-1997 Zvwi‡Li Rã ZvwjKv cÖt 7| Bnv RãK…Z Pvjvb I Gj, BD G cÖt 6(K), 7(K)|…..Ó
19. From the above evidence of PW 2 it appears that though the seizure list of Challans has been reportedly marked as exhibit 7 in the evidence but in fact that has been marked as exhibits 7/1 and 2(two) Challans dated 18-10-1992 has been reportedly marked in the evidence as exhibit 7(ka) but the same has been actually marked as exhibits 7(ka) and 7(ka)1. However, be that as it may, it appears that the DO letter was issued on the basis of fake or non-existent Challans by the appellant and others and for their safety after 8 days on 18-10-1992 of the issuance of the DO letter the money was deposited in the bank through exhibit Nos. 7(ka) and 7(ka)1. The evidence of PW 2 shows that the Challans were sized from the custody of the appellant though the same should have been in the custody of Dewan Mills Limited and it would be more clear if we go through the seizure list of the Challans, the exhibit No.7 /1, which runs as follows.
Rã ZvwjKv t-
m~Î t- MvBevÜ _vbv gvgjv bs 16 Zvs 21-2-95
1| Rã Kivi Zvs I mgq t 2-12-97, 13.40 NwUKvq|
2| Rã Kivi ¯’vb t wW G we Awdm, MvBevÜ
3| Rã Kiv nBj Kvnvi wbKU nB‡Z t
†gvt Avt evix, Dc-Lv`¨ cwi`k©K, MvBevÜv m`i _vbv, MvBevÜv wcZv-g”Z e`i DwÏb Avnv¤§` mvs †MvWvDb †ivW, MvBevÜv Dc¯’vc‡Ki g‡Z-
4| Rã K…Z †iKW© c‡Îi weeiY t
†gmvm© †`Iqvb wgj‡mi 184 Lv‡Z UvKv Rgv †`Iqvi 18-10-92Bs Zvwi‡Li †UªRvix Pvjv‡bi
5| mvÿx‡`i ¯^vÿi t-
(1) †gvt Qvgvby¾vgvb
Awdm mnKvix MvBevÜv, wW G we|
Avwg Rã K‡i wbR †ndvR‡Z jBjvg|
¯^vt A¯úó
2-12-97
†MŠibvivqb mvnv
cwi`k©K
wWGwe, MvBevÜv
20. From the evidence of PW 2 as well as from the seizure list, exhibit No.7/1 it reveals that the appellant misappropriating 1000 kgs wheats subsequently on 18-10-1992 deposited money through challans, exhibit 7(ka) and 7(ka)1 and it has become more evident when we find that the copy of challans have been recovered from this appellant.
21. The involvement of this appellant with the occurrence of this case would be more visible from the evidence of PWs 7, 8 and 9 also. PW 7 Bimal Kumar Madak, who was Food Inspector, at DC Food Office, Gaibanda at the relevant time stated in the following ways:
H mg‡q Dc‡Rjv Lv`¨ wbqš¿K (TCF) wQ‡jb †iRvDj nK I Dc-Lv`¨ cwi`k©K wQ‡jb Avmvgx Avt evix| Dc‡Rjv Lv`¨ wbqš¿K e¨vsK ¯Œj, Pvjvb cixÿv K‡ib Ges Zvi wb‡`©‡k DO †j‡Lb| 10-10-1992 Zvwi‡L 1056305 bs DO Gi †jLv Avmvgx Avt evixi Ges Dnv‡Z Zvi mwn Av‡Q| G‡Z Avmvgx †iRvDj n‡KiI mwn Av‡Q| Pvjvb bs 261 †Z Avt evixi mwn Av‡Q| Avwg Zv‡`i nv‡Zi †jLv I mwn wPwb|Ó
22. The above evidence of PW 7 shows that the challan Nos. 261 dated 18-10-1992, exhibit Nos. 7(ka) and 7(ka)1 were also signed by this appellant and the DO letter was written by him and this important evidence of PW 7 was never controverted till now. The PW 7 is very much competent person to depose in this case as he was a departmental staff of the relevant Food office at the relevant time.
23. PW 8 Md Sawkat Ali is another important witness of this case who had served at Gaibanda Sadar Food office at the relevant time in the post of Food Inspector who stated in the following ways:
H mg‡q Pvjvb cv‡ki `vwqZ¡ wQj Dc-Lv`¨ cwi`k©K Avmvgx Avãyj evixi Ges DO †jLvi `vwqZ¡ wQj ‡hŠ_fv‡e Avãyj evix I AvLZviDwχbi| e¨vsK ¯Œj hvPvB‡qi `vwqZ¡ wQj Avmvgx †iRvDj n‡Ki| Avwg †hvM`v‡bi ci †`L‡Z cvB wgjviMY Mg Zz‡j wiUvY© w`Z bv| 10-10-92 Zvwi‡L wiUvY© QvovB DO Bmy¨ Kiv nq| GB Zvwi‡L †Kvb UvKv Rgv nqwb| c‡i 18-10-92 Zvwi‡L Rgv n‡q‡Q| 10-10-92 Zvwi‡Li DO ‡Z (cÖt 2/K) Ges Avãyj evix I †iRvDj n‡Ki mwn Av‡Q| MZ 18-10-92 Zvwi‡Li Pvjvb {cÖt 7(K)-7(K)1} Avãyj evixi mwn Av‡Q| e¨vs‡K UvKv Rgv QvovB f~qv Pvjv‡bi gva¨‡g DO Bmy¨ Kiv nw”Qj Ges cieZx©‡Z Pvjv‡b D³ UvKv Rgv Kiv n‡q‡Q|
24. From the evidence of PW 8 it appears that this appellant Abdul Bari was entrusted with the duties to pass the Challans and to prepare the DO letter and this important documents were the essential tools for misappropriation of the wheats and the appellant had the official responsibility to prepare the said documents and this definite prosecution case has not been denied by the appellant in the cross examination of PW 8. The appellant using his official capacity and position and having the full knowledge of non deposit of money on 10-10-1992 had issued the DO letter on 10-10-1992 and later on to coverage the occurrence deposited the money on 18-10-1992.
25. PW 9 HM Kamrul Islam, another officer of the Food Office at Gaibandha stated that the Challans were passed by Abdul Bari and this evidence has not been controverted by the appellant. His evidence runs as follows:-
Avwg 1990 n‡Z 1993 Gi gvSvgvwS ch©šÍ MvBevÜv LSD †Z fvicÖvß Kg©KZ©v wnmv‡e Kg©iZ wQjvg| H mg‡q ‡iRvDj nK _vbv Lv`¨ wbqš¿K wnmv‡e, Avãyj evix Dc-Lv`¨ cwi`k©K wnmv‡e I AvLZvi DwÏb Awdm mnKvix wnmv‡e Kg©iZ wQ‡jb| cÖ`k©bx 2(K) wPwýZ DO †Z Bmy¨Kvix wnmv‡e †iRvDj nK I Avãyj evixi mwn Av‡Q| cÖvt 7(K)-7(K) 1 wPwýZ Pvjvbg~‡j 18-10-92 Zvwi‡L UvKv Rgv n‡q‡Q| D³ Pvjv‡b Avãyj evixi mwn Av‡Q cvkKvix wnmv‡e| cÖ_‡g f~qv Pvjv‡bi gva¨‡g DO Bmy¨ Kiv nq|
26. From the evidence of PW 9 it appears that the accused Abdul Bari had the official responsibility to pass the Challans for depositing the money before issuing the DO letter. So he had the full scope to know whether money was deposited or not before issuing the DO letter, exhibit No. 2(ka) ) on 10-10-1992. It ultimately means and reavels that no money can be deposited through any challan without the approval of the appellant at the relevant time.
Since the appellant was also officially involved in depositing the money through the challan before issuing any DO letter, so he must have the definite knowledge whether money was deposited duly or not in the Government fund as against the DO letter dated 10-10-1992, exhibit No. 2(ka). So, it is difficult for this Court to place any reliance on the argument of the learned Advocate for the appellant that this appellant though issued the DO letter marked as exhibit 2(ka) but he had done it at the instance of another accused Rezaul Huq. Since this accused had also an important role in passing the Challan and issuing the DO letter so, he had the opportunity to know whether money had been deposited in connection of the DO letter which they issued. So it clearly proves the participation of the appellant in the issuing of the DO letter having full knowledge that money had not been deposited duly in the Government fund in connection of the particular DO.
(To be continued)
27. The learned Advocate for the appellant also submits that before issuing the DO letter by the Thana Food Officer they usually go through the Bank scroll and when they are satisfied that the Bank had admitted the deposit of the money, then only the Thana Food Office issue the DO letter for the delivery of wheats. The learned Advocate for the appellant very categorically submits that though the PW 12 Md Zohurul Alam Gani testified that he was entrusted at the relevant time to write the Bank scroll but he did not write and send the Bank scroll related to the disputed DO letter and in the estimation of the leacned Advocate this evidence is not sufficient to prove that the exhibit No. 4(ka)3 was forged.
28. In my consideration, the evidence of PW 12 in order to prove the disputed Bank scroll as forged is more than sufficient because he was the right person who was entrusted with at the relevant time to write the Bank scroll to say whether the disputed Bank scroll exhibit 4(ka)3 was written by him or not. His evidence run as follows:
ÒAvwg MZ 9-4-92 n‡Z b‡f¤^i/92 ch©šÍ †mvbvjx e¨vsK MvBevÜv kvLvq Dc-wnmv‡e iÿb c‡` Kg©iZ wQjvg| H mg‡q Avwg e¨vsK ¯Œj †jLvi KvR KiZvg| 25-7-92, 3-8-92, 10-10-92 Zvwi‡Li e¨vsK ¯Œj¸‡jv Avgvi nv‡Zi †jLv bq| G¸‡jv‡Z cÖ`Ë ¯^vÿi Avgvi cwiwPZ bq| Z‡e 15-10-92, 18-10-92, 24-10-92 Zvwi‡Li ¯Œj¸‡jv‡Z ZrKvjxb g¨v‡bRvi ‡iRvDj Kwi‡gi mwn Av‡Q | Avwg Zvi mwn wPwb|Ó
29. PW 2 categorically said that the Bank scroll dated 10-10-1992, exhibit No. 4(ka)3 was not written by him. Now, it is found that this scroll is forged which was received by this appellant in order to issue DO letter. PW 12 also said that the Bank scroll dated 18-10-1992, exhibit No. 3(ka)2) by which money was deposited in the Bank in the name of Dewan Mills was written by him. In my consideration PW 12 is the most competent person to say which scroll was issued by him. So, in my consideration by the evidence of PW12, the prosecution has been able to prove that this appellant had issued the DO letter relying on some forged and false Bank scroll on 10-10-1992.
30. The learned Advocate for the appellant argued before me that after the discovery of the occurrence of this case the money have been deposited by this accused and others and the challans of the same were recovered from them, so, he should not be held guilty for the alleged misappropriation. In my consideration after clear misappropriation of the government fund, depositing of the money later on will not absolve the appellant from the charge of misappropriation. After misappropriation, any attempt to repair the same depositing the amount of misappropriated found will not let him off from the charge and if any lenient view is taken upon the same that will be sheer indulgence to the offender to be more dangerous and aggressive in committing the further offence of the same kind. So, I find it difficult to place any importance on this fact of the case.
31. The total prosecution case is concentrated whether this appellant inconnivance with others had issued the DO letter for the delivery of wheats without having any deposit for the same and the said allegations have been proved by the DO letter itself and also for the evidence of PW 7. PW 7 testified that the DO letter dated 10-10-92 was written by accused Abdul Bari and signed by him and Rezaul Huq and he knows their signatures. There appears no cross-examination of PW 7 of his evidence and there is nothing to discard or to disbelieve his such evidence in any way.
32. More over, the very plain and simple prosecution case as brought against this appellant that he inconnivance with the others in order to misappropriate the wheats issued DO letter having knowledge of no deposit for the same has not been challenged by him (appellant) in any manner. He being an important office bearer of the said office could have asserted that the money was deposited duly or he had issued the challan and DO letters on being misdirected but nothing has been asserted by this appellant. The accused at trial was totally silent. So I find it difficult to disbelieve the prosecution case as well as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
33. The trial Court on proper scanning of the evidence found him guilty under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention and Corruption Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Taka 10,000. The trial Court also found him guilty under sections 467/109 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Taka 10,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. From the discussion made above it has been found that the DO letter exhibit No. 2(ka) was a false document which was created to misappropriate 1,000 Kgs wheats and this appellant is one of the author of the said document as the same was signed by him along with others. So in view of sections 464 and 465 of the Penal Code, the said document is forged documents and since the appellant is one of the author of the document so, his conviction and sentence under section 467 of the Penal Code appears to be legal and fair. It is also fact that this appellant has the legal right and authority to prepare the genuine DO letter but the exhibit No. 2(ka) was not genuine document which was prepared without having any deposit within the knowledge of the appellant and the appellant in order to misappropriate the government wheats using his official capacity created the forged DO letter. So conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 647 also did not call for any interference from this Court.
34. The trial Court also directed to run the substantive sentences concurrently. In fact, the trial Court took very lenient view in sentencing the appellant and all the legal facilities available in the hands of the trial Court was also given to the appellant. I find no point to interfere in the conviction and sentence of the appellant as he has been already blessed by the trial Court in all the possible ways. So, the judgment of the trial Court did not call for any interference from this Court.
35. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
The convict appellant is directed to surrender in the trial Court within l(one) calendar month from the dated of reading the judgment there to undergone his remaining sentence.
Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial Court along with Lower Courts Record for information and necessary action.
