1989 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1988. A case under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against Shaukat Ali, ex‑Patwari, Lahore Development Authority. The Investigating Agency submitted four challans against the said Patwari. The trial came up before the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Lahore, who, vide his judgment dated 12‑5‑1987, found the appellant guilty m each case and sentenced him to imprisonment for one year under section 161, P.P.C. and six months' R.I. under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act; 1947. He was also sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default one month's R.I. in all the four cases. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence awarded in four cases. Since the evidence in each case is the same arising out of one F.I.R., therefore, I propose to deal with all the four appeals in this judgment. This judgment shall dispose of Appeals Nos. 304, 305, 306 and 307 of 1987.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Shaukat Ali while posted as Patwari of Lahore Development Authority contacted the witnesses and promised that he would arrange for to get them allotted plots in 1600 Acre Scheme, Lahore, provided he was paid Rs. 350 per family. Later on he is alleged to have come to the colony where he was duly paid Rs. 350 by different people iii the presence of Arif, Allah Rakha and Makhan Masih, P.Ws. The above‑said persons also paid him Rs.350 each. Thereafter he further demanded Rs. 1,300 per family for showing them favour, which were also paid to him. After about a month, the above‑said persons again contacted Shaukat Ali who further demanded Rs. 1,300 per family and promised them that they would he allotted plots. Each of the above‑said persons paid Rs. 1,300 more. The witnesses kept on waiting for about 2 months when Shaukat Ali visited premises and demanded Rs. 20 more from each family on the pretext that he was supposed to entertain his officers with sweet-meet. The witnesses again paid Rs. 20 each to the Patwari. They waited for some time but no allotment in favour of any of the witnesses was made, whereupon they contacted him and demanded back their money which had since been paid to him. Said Shaukat Ali could not arrange for the return of the money therefore, he executed an agreement on 29‑5‑1982 wherein he accepted that h had received Rs. 2,877 from each family and would return the same by 15‑6‑198, On his failure to return the said amount Makhan Masih got a case registered against him with Police Station Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Lahore. The police investigated the case against the appellant and after usual investigation submitted four separate challans with regard to the same transaction.

3. The prosecution in support of its case has produced seven witnesses in all. P.W.1 Makhan Masih has given a detailed account of the occurrence by deposing that he alongwith 13 other families was living in Farooqia Colony, Lahore when the Lahore Development Authority demolished the said colony on the ground that all 'he families had made unauthorised constructions. Makhan Masih alongwith Arif and Allah Rakha P.Ws. came to the Office of L.DA. and met the appellant. Initially he charged Rs. 350 per family and then promised to visit the site. Thereafter he was paid RS. 1,300 per family and later on again on his demand he was paid Rs. 1,300 more per family. The said amount was paid in the presence of the witnesses who themselves also paid the said amount. The witness has further stated that after, about 2 months of his having received the amount, the appellant again visited them and demanded Rs. 20 more per family which was accordingly paid. He has further deposed that when the appellant faded to fulfil the promise they contacted him in the presence of some witnesses, wherein he showed his inability to return the amount already received and promised to pay the same. He also executed an agreement P.W.1/1 wherein he had promised to return the said amount by 15‑6‑1982. The agreement was executed on 29‑5‑1982. The said agreement was witnessed by Nazir Hussain P.W. and Shaukat Ali. Arif Masili, P.W.2, and Allah Rakha, P.W.3, have corroborated the statement of Makhan Masih, P.W.1 on every aspect of the case. Nazir Hussain P.W.4 proved the execution of the agreement P.W.I/1 by the appellant and stated that he had witnessed the same. The rest of the witnesses are formal in nature. Muhammad Baqir Shah, P.W.5 had partly investigated the case and the challan was submitted by Ali Akbar P.W.6. Arshad Hussain P.W.7 had recorded the formal F.I.R. P.W7/I.

4. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. without oath. He denied the entire prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. He also examined one D.W. D.W.1 Tariq Mehmood, Junior Clerk, Estate Branch, L.D.A., produced photo copies of the proceedings in which Farooqia Colony, Allama Iqbal Town was taken by the Authorities.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant is highly doubtful. Submits that the appellant has already been removed from service, therefore, it is difficult to believe that he could show any favour to any of the witnesses. Submits that the prosecution evidence is not confidence inspiring therefore, it would not be safe to base the conviction of the appellant on this evidence. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant have been opposed by the learned counsel for the State.

6. I have heard both the learned counsel at length and gone through the Makhan Masih, Arif Masih and Allah Rakha P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, are unanimous that they paid the appellant different amounts on different dates. They have also stated that the said amount was paid to the appellant with a promise that he would show them favour by getting the plots allotted to them situated in Farooqia Colony, Lahore. They have also stated that when the appellant failed to show the favour, they demanded the money back which he failed to pay, therefore, he executed an agreement P.W.1/1 promising to pay the same within 15 days. These witnesses have been cross‑examined at length but the defence has failed to bring anything on the record which could suggest that it would not be safe to rely upon their testimony. All the witnesses are poor labourers who were not even known to the appellant. There cannot possibly be any clash of interest between the witnesses and the appellant. They have also stated that they did not even know the appellant prior to their meeting, him in the L.D.A. Office. In these circumstances, I feel no hesitation in holding that the witnesses are truthful and can safely be relied upon. Nazir Hussain, P.W.4, has deposed that agreement EXh.P.W.l/1 was written to his presence by the appellant and he signed the same as a witness. The witness has been cross‑examined but his signatures on the agreement have not been challenged. It has also not been challenged in cross‑examination that the appellant did not execute the said agreement. No enmity with the witness has been suggested. In the absence of challenging the signatures of this witness on the agreement referred to above, I hold that the same is proved, which corroborates the testimony of the witnesses discussed above. For what has been discussed above, I hold the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any doubt against the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he has lost his job and has also undergone an imprisonment of eight months needs some consideration. The case against the appellant was registered as far back as 18‑4‑1983, and he was convicted by the trial Court on 12‑5‑1987. He has suffered the agony of trial for more than four years. He has also undergone eight and a half months of imprisonment out of total period of one year. In these circumstances, I hold that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone would adequately meet the ends of justice. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal of Shaukat Ali, appellant, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000 in each case is maintained. With this reduction in the sentence of imprisonment the appeals are dismissed. In case of default in payment of fine the sentences shall run concurrently. H.B.T./S‑356/L Order accordingly.