1989 P Cr (PLP)

Owais Tasleem for the State. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1988. Muhammad Siddique was tried by Special Judge (Central) Lahore for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned trial Court vide its judgment, dated 28‑5‑1988 convicted the appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and sentenced him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default thereof further R.I. for a period of one month. The appellant has appealed against his conviction.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that one Riaz Ahmad lodged a complaint in Police Station A.C.E., Gujranwala, on 4‑12‑1983 that the electricity meter installed in his house was not working properly. He contacted the office of S.D.O. WAPDA, Civil Lines, Gujranwala for the change of the meter, the Line Superintendent Muhammad Siddique (appellant) checked the same and said that it required to be replaced; he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.200 for changing the said meter. Zulfiqar Ali, Inspector A.C.E., Gujranwala before whom the complaint was made, produced the complainant before Mr. Abdul Matloob, Magistrate 1st Class who recorded the statement of the first informant and constituted a raiding party. The learned Magistrate also noted down the numbers of the currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50 each which are Exh.P.l to P.4. Thereafter the raiding party went to the office of the accused, and the first informant was sent inside while the members of the raiding party kept on standing outside the office. After a short-while the accused as well as the first informant came out of the office, and on the signal given by the first informant the learned Magistrate introduced himself and got recovered the tainted currency notes from the pocket of Salooka of the appellant. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and after necessary investigation, the challan was submitted in Court by F.I.A.

3. The prosecution in support of its case has produced six witnesses in all. P.W.1 Riaz Ahmad is the complainant who has stated that the appellant had demanded Rs.200 from him as illegal gratification for replacing his electric meter. He has also proved that he made an application before the Anti‑Corruption Department, and his statement by a Magistrate was also recorded. Abdul Matloob Khan, M.I.C. P.W.2, has stated that Riaz Ahmad, complainant, was‑ produced before him by Zulfiqar Ali, Inspector, A.C.E., he recorded his (complainant) statement Exh.P.B and also noted down the numbers of the currency notes P.1 to P.4 and gave them back to the first informant. He has also stated that when the first informant signalled them, he (witness) introduced himself to the appellant and recovered the tainted currency notes from his possession and thereafter ordered that he be arrested. Zulfiqar Ali, Inspector A.C.E. P.W.4 has stated that the complainant appeared before him; he, after recording his statement, produced him before Abdul Matloob, M.I.C., who also recorded his (complainant) statement, and thereafter a raiding party was constituted. He was also a member of the raiding party and has corroborated the statement of the Magistrate as well as of the complainant.

4. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he has taken up the defence that before the incident he had asked the complainant to supply him rice of superior quality and for that purpose he (appellant) paid him Rs.200 in advance and Rs.100 was yet to be paid as balance. According to him, the rice supplied by the complainant to the appellant was not of good quality, therefore, he did not accept the same and demanded back his money Rs.200. On the day of raid the' complainant had come to him and returned the currency notes P.1 to P.4 as a refund of the amount which the appellant had paid to him earlier for the supply of rice. The appellant also appeared m his defence on oath as D.W.2 and affirmed the assertion made in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The defence also produced one Muhammad Islam, a Clerk of the Office of the XEN, Gujranwala. He stated that he had brought the inquiry proceedings which were initiated against the appellant on ' the complaint of the first informant, and had also brought the statement of the complainant made before the Inquiry Officer on 21- 8‑1985.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant is highly doubtful. Submits that no reliance on the statement of Riaz Ahmad, P.W.l can be placed because he has made contradictory statements before the Inquiry Officer and before the learned trial Court. Submits that the first informant admits that the appellant had paid him Rs.200 as advance for the. supply of rice and the rice supplied by him was not accepted by him, therefore, the defence version given by the appellant should have been accepted. Submits that since the first informant has made contradictory statements, therefore, he cannot be relied unless corroborated, but there is no corroboration available on the file. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant have been controverted by learned counsel for the State.

6. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The only evidence available on the file with regard to the passing on of the currency notes to the appellant, is Riaz Ahmad, P.W.1. But, in cross‑examination he has also admitted that he had some dispute with regard to the supply of rice with the appellant. He has also admitted that the appellant used to demand his Rs.200 back from him. He stated that he had admitted this fact before the Inquiry Officer who was holding a departmental inquiry against the appellant. The defence produced the statement of the first informant made before the Inquiry Officer, which is available on the file as Exh.D.A. In the said statement he has; admitted that there was a dispute between him and the appellant regarding the payment of Rs.200. In the end of his statement he has also admitted that because of the said dispute he had taken the revengful step. If the statement of the 5omplainant is kept in juxtaposition with the defence version of the accused, it is apparent that the defence version becomes more plausible. As far as the statement of the learned Magistrate and the raiding officer is concerned, I am afraid they cannot be of much help to the prosecution because they neither saw, the money being passed on to the appellant nor heard the conversation which took place between them. Their evidence is only to the effect that they recovered the tainted currency notes from the possession of the appellant. As held earlier that complainant's evidence alone would not be sufficient because the appellant also admits having received Rs.200 but in different circumstances. At the time of raid the appellant did not make any statement, but, this fact, I think, should not be taken against him because he had stated that because of raid he had become mentally disturbed so he was unable to make statement. For what has been stated above, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, giving the benefit of doubt I accept the appeal and set aside the conviction. S.A./M‑1015/L Appeal accepted.