1983 P Cr (PLP)

3. This F. I. R. was recorded by Mr. K. K. Bhatia D. S. P. Anti. Corruption Police, Hyderabad, at Sanghar. In presence of Mr. Muhammad Salik Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M Sinjhoro and Mashir Ghulam Muhammad Mr. Bhatia gave notes of Rs. 200 noting denomination and numbers to complainant and prepared Mashirnama Exh.

3. The trap was then arranged. At the Petrot Pump, the complainant gave Rs. 200 (tainted money) to the appellant within the sight of Mashir Ghulam Muhammad and Police Party, including the Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M. Mr. Muhammad Salik. Appellant kept money in his Urdu Digest, which he kept on the carrier of his bicycle. On signal the party rushed towards the appellant. After revealing their identity, Anti-Corruption D. S. P. secured Rs. 200 (tained money) from the Urdu Digest (Exh. 5) of the appellant, kept on the carrier of his bicycle. The numbers of the Notes tallied with the numbers as shown in the Mashirnama (Exh. 3). Such Mashirnama Exh. 4 was prepared, which was signed by Magistrate, the Mashir and the D. P. S. Anti‑Corruption. Diary Exh.6 and chit Exh. 7 bearing name of complainant Kabir Ali were recovered from the possession of the appellant. Mashirnama Exh. 8 of the personal search of the appellant was also prepared. Appellant was arrested

4. After usual investigation the appellant was sent up to trial Court to stand his trial for the aforesaid offence.

5. When substance of accusation was read over and explained to the appellant above named, he did not plead guilty.

6. The prosecution have examined Mr. Muhammad Salik (Exh. 2), who had produced Mashirnama of handing over tainted money to complainant (Exh. 4). Urdu Digest of the appellant (Exh. 5) Diary secured from the appellant (Exh. 6), chit secured from the appellant (Exh. 7) and Mashirnama of the personal search of the appellant (Exb. 8). Mr. Yar Muhammad (Exh. 9). complainant Kabir Ali (Exh. 10) who had produced F. I. R. (Exh. 11). chit (Exh. 12), true copy of complaint (Exh. 13). Mashir Ghulam Muhammad (Exh. 14), Mr. Atiq Ahmad C. O. A. C. E., Mirpurkhas Exh.15) and Mr. K. K. Bhatia (Exh. 17). Appellant Abdul Hameed in his statement Exh. 19 admitted that he was a public servant, but denied all other allegations. He has alleged enmity with one Rana Afzal, who was Stenotypists of A. D. M. Sanghar at that time. He had explained, that the complainant, had told him, that he had brought a letter from his friend at Shahdadpur, which was lying at his Petrol Pump. He then came at 12 noon and be accompanied him on Bicycle to get the said letter. The complainant went inside the office at Petrol Pump brought a letter and handed it over to him, which he kept in his Urdu Digest, which was lying on the carrier of the cycle. Thereafter Police came, secured the said letter and planted money from the said Urdu Digest. Finally he stated, that he had been made victim of enmity of said Rana Afzal. According to him the complainant was a man of question able character and was facing proceedings under "Sind Crime Control Act" at Shahdadpur.

8. The appellant has not led any defence.

9. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it, convicted the appellant above named as hereinbefore mentioned and consequently the appellant has filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

10. The above appeal is pending since 1977 and even today the appellant has sent a telegram for adjournment. However, since the learned Advocate for the State at the outset submitted, that he was I not supporting Advocate the impugned judgment, I decided to hear the above appeal with the assistance of the learned Advocate for the State as the same is pending since 1977.

11. The learned Advocate for the State took me through the R & P of the learned trial Court as well as impugned judgment and submitted, that the prosecution case rests upon the statements of P. W. Kabir Ali (complainant), P. W. Ghulam Muhammad Mashir, P. W. Atiq Ahmad (C. p. A. C . E.) Mirpurkhas and P. W. Khemchand D. S. P. The learned Advocate for the State submitted, that there are material contradictions in the statements of these prosecution witnesses inter se and the prosecution story as given in the F. I. R. on the face of it looks improbable and in view of the enmity suggested by the appellant on account of which he has been involved, he does not support the conviction, The learned Advocate for the State further pointed out, that P. W. Kabir Ali the complainant is involved in many cases and was sent up under the Gooda Act and the learned Magistrate, who supervised the trap was known to the complainant and was brought from Sinjhoro and was not from Sanghar and the state ment of P. W. Ghulam Muhammad the Mashir is full of contradictions with the statement of P. W. Kabir Ali (complainant) as well as the learned Magistrate and the I. O. In view of these facts, to learned Advocate for the State submitted, that no reliance can be placed on such statements of the prosecution witnesses at all.

12. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocate before and have gone through the R & P of the learned trial Court as well as through the impugned judgment.

13. I find material contradictions in the statements of P. Ws. inter s regarding arrival at Petrol Pump by them, which creates doubt about the whole alleged trap and recovery of trained money from the possession of the appellant. The learned Magistrate, who is alleged to have supervised the trap is also not from Sanghar, but was brought from Sinjhoro. Statements of Mashir Ghulam Muhammad as well as complainant Kabir Ali do not inspire confidence at all. In addition to this complainant Kabir Ali is of questionable character and has bsen challaned under Goonda Act, on various grounds; including filing of false complaints. Mashir Ghulam Muhammad has acted as Mashir, on his own admission at least in one other case of Anti‑corruption. In my opinion, it would be unsafe to rely on the statements of P. Ws. I have carefully gone through the statements of all P. Ws., which in my opinion do not inspire any confidence at all.

14. Therefore I allow the above appeal and set aside conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant by impugned judgment and acquit B him by giving him benefit of doubt and discharge the bail bonds executed by him. Appeal allowed.