1989 P Cr (PLP)

Abdul Wahad Chaudhry for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 2nd October, 1988. A case under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 stands registered against the appellant. The case came up for trial before Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption. Lahore, who vide his judgment dated 4‑5‑1986, convicted and sentenced the appellant to three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.15,000 or in default undergo R.I. for another three months. The appellant has appealed to this Court. 2 The prosecution story, in brief, is that Maqbool Ahmad, appellant, was working as Food Inspector in the year 1983. On 3rd of June, 1983, he came to the Depot of one Dilshad Ahmad and threatened him that he was black‑marketing, therefore, he should pay him Rs.1,000, failing which he would proceed against him. The appellant was paid Rs.5W and he took some registers from the Depot to his office. Thereafter he again demanded Rs.2,

000. Dilshad Ahmad, the Depot‑holder, accordingly, informed the Anti‑Corruption Department. He was produced before a Magistrate, where his statement was recorded and, thereafter, a raiding party was constituted. The money was exchanged in the presence of the raiding party, therefore, the appellant and another person Manzoor Ahmad were arrested at the spot.

3. The prosecution in support of its case has produced six witnesses in all. The accused in his defence also produced four D.Ws. P.W.1 Manzar Saeed, Magistrate 1st Class Lahore has proved that the complainant appeared before him and made a statement on the basis of which a raiding party was constituted. Dilshad Ahmad P.W.2 has stated that he was a Depot‑Holder and the appellant demanded illegal gratification from him which he did not want to pay, therefore, he informed the Authorities, on the basis of which the raid was conducted and the appellant was arrested. He has also stated that he paid Rs.1,000 to the appellant. Tahir Kayani, P.W.3, has not supported the prosecution case, therefore, was cross‑examined by the Public Prosecutor. P.W.4 Ghulam Arshad has stated that he was Munshi of Dilshad Ahmad P.W. on his Depot and Rs. 500 were paid to the appellant in his presence. P.W.5 Muhammad Ashraf has stated that during June 1983 he was working as Inspector Anti‑Corruption at Lahore, and on the statement of Dilshad Ahmad he registered a case against Maqbool Ahmad. He has also corroborated the statement of the Magistrate about the raid conducted and the arrest of the appellant. P.W.6 Muhammad Aslam, Inspector Circle Officer, A.C.E. Lahore, submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C, against the appellant. At the conclusion of the prosecution case, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. without oath wherein he has refuted the entire prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. He has further stated that he was already holding an inquiry against the complainant when the raid was conducted and this fact was in the knowledge of his higher officials as well. He also, produced evidence in his defence D.W.1 Abdul Latif was working as Rationing Controller in the year 1983, and in June, 1983 he had directed the appellant compete the inquiry against Dilshad Ahmad, complainant, Depot holder, at the earliest. Manzoor Ahmad, P.W.2, is a Rationing Inspector, and on 6‑6‑198. he was present with the appellant in his (appellant) office at Royal Park. He stated that in his presence the complainant tried to offer money the appellant but the same was refused, therefore, the complainant threw the money near the scooter of the appellant and signalled the raiding‑party. Nisar Ahmad D.W.‑ Assistant Food Controller, Lahore had produced indent form of Dilshad Ahmad Muhammad Tufail. D.W.4, was Assistant Ward Rationing Officer during the year, 1983, and has deposed about the innocence of the appellant.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the conversation between the appellant and the complainant was not heard by anyone which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution case. Submits that the learned Magistrate has admitted that the appellant was reluctant in accepting the money being offered by the complainant and there was some altercation between them as well. This fact shows beyond doubt that the appellant was not prepared to accept the bribe. Contends that it has already come on the record that the appellant was holding an inquiry against the malpractice of the complainant, therefore, the present case is to counter‑blast the said inquiry. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant have been controverted by learned counsel for the State.

5. I have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the record. The learned Magistrate, who supervised the raid, has stated that when the money was offered to the appellant, he refused to accept the same and there was some altercation between the complainant and the first informant. He has also state that the appellant ultimately accepted the money but handed over to his companion Manzoor Ahmad and did not retain the same with him. Complainant, Dilshad Ahmad, P.W.2, has supported his version as given in the F.I.R. but, in; cross‑examination has stated that he had made some incorrect statement before the police. He also had to accept that he had been issuing sugar on various ration cards illegally. P.W.5 Muhammad Ashraf, Inspector Anti‑Corruption, has also stated that when the money was offered to the appellant, he was hesitant and dill not accept the same and, after accepting the same, did not retain it himself but passed it on to one Manzoor. A perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses clearly indicates that the appellant was not willing to accept the illegal gratification. If this be so, then the assertion of the complainant that appellant had asked for money automatically falls to ground. The defence taken by the appellant at the very outset before the raiding Magistrate has also been corroborated by the defence witnesses. Copy of the inquiry report has also been placed on the file, according to which the appellant had held the complainant responsible for black‑marketing of the sugar from his Depot. If the prosecution case is kept in juxta‑position with the defence, it becomes clear that the version put by the defence is more plausible. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. In these circumstances, the appeal is accepted. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged. M.Y.H./M‑956/L Appeal accepted.