1994 P Cr (PLP)

A.H. Masud for the State. Date of hearing: 24th October, 1993 Ghulam Ali (30) alongwith Ahmed Khan (30) was sent up by Police Station Gunjial, Khushab, for trial for an offence under section 420/409/165, P.P.C. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, vide his judgment, dated 12-5-1991, gave the benefit of doubt and acquitted Ahmed Khan of all the charges. Ghulam Ali was however, found guilty under section 420, P.P.C. and convicted and sentenced to 3 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 10,000, or in default six months' R.I. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.

2. The prosecution story in brief as disclosed by Haji Abdullah, P.W.1, in F.I.R. Exh.P.A., lodged on 15-1-1990, was to the effect that 8/9 months before the registration of the case Ahmed Khan, acquitted accused met the complainant and told him that Ghulam Ali, an employee of Cooperative Society was his friend and prepared to give a loan of Rs. 6 lac without interest, payable in five years provided he deposited Rs. 1,50,

000. Said Ahmed Khan further volunteered that he would become his partner. The complainant met Ghulam Ali who verified the same. Thereafter on the following day he was informed that said Ghulam Ali was coming in the house of Ahmed Khan and the complainant alongwith Muhammad Din P.W. went there. Ghulam Ali appellant obtained some signatures of the first informant as well as got a photo copy of his identity card. He received the payment in two instalments from complainant; one of Rs. 81,000 and the other of Rs. 32,

000. Both the payments were made in the presence of the witnesses. The case was investigated by Ahmed Khan, S.H.O. P.W.6, who after due investigation challaned the accused.

3. The prosecution in support of its case produced six witnesses in all. P.W.1, Haji Abdullah, was the complainant in the case. He gave a detailed account of the occurrence by corroborating the version given in the F.I.R. In cross-examination he however, admitted that after. the registration of case, accused Ghulam Ali had repaid his entire amount therefore, nothing was due from him. Muhammad Din, P.W.2, stated that complainant, Haji Abdullah went to the house of Ahmed Khan where Ghulam Ali accused was present. In.his presence the accused obtained signatures of the complainant on three forms and also got a copy of identity card. He further stated that on the following day he accompanied the complainant and went to the office of Ghulam Ali appellant where Rs. 81,000 were paid to him and he was told that the remaining amount would be paid the next day. Abdul Jabbar. P.W.3, did not support the prosecution case therefore, was declared hostile and cross-examined by A.D.A. Usman P.W.4, stated that he accompanied Haji Abdullah complainant to the office of Ghulam Ali appellant and in his presence complainant paid Rs. 32,000 to the accused. Ghulam Haider, P.W.5, an employee of the Cooperative Society Qaidabad stated that he had not received any scheme from his office; according to which Rs.6 lac could be advanced to Zamindars on receiving cash. Ahmed Khan, S.H.O. P.W.6 had investigated the case and challaned the accused. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence appellant was examined without oath wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question he stated that the department had appointed him as Administrator for recovery of loans. When he started recovering loans the complainant got annoyed and involved him in the instant case on account of mala fide. He also produced the defence witness in his defence. According to him/the complainant Haji Abdullah had given an application for sanction of cooperative society in the year 1988 whereupon Ghulam Ali appellant was sent who submitted his report on 27-3-1989. The report was to the effect that the application of the complainant be filed. In cross-examination he stated that the application of the complainant was available on the record and he had brought it. He, however, could not state if the application was placed on the file after the registration of case. The accused also appeared in his defence on oath and pleaded innocence. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not free from doubt. Contended that the case was got registered with an inordinate delay of eight months which created grave doubt on the prosecution version. Submitted that the mala fide of the complainant have become apparent in view of the defence evidence therefore, no reliance could be placed on it. It was argued that there are glaring discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses therefore, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellant. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.

4. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence. The prosecution in order to establish its case produced six witnesses in all. The main witness in the instant case is the complainant himself who had given a detailed account of the occurrence. He was put to the test of lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be brought on the record which could suggest that he had any motive for false implication of the appellant. His statement rings true and can safely be relied upon. The statement of the first informant has been duly corroborated by Muhammad Din P.W.2 and Usman P.W.4. Both of them stated that in their presence the first informant had met the appellant who received the money from him. Both the witnesses were put to the test of lengthy cross?examination but nothing could be brought on the file to discredit them. There is nothing on the record to show even slightest interest of the witnesses. They have not even been suggested any enmity or ill-will against the appellant. The first informant is truthful witness that is why he frankly admitted in Court that the entire amount was paid to him by the appellant after the registration of case. He did not claim any money which was recovered from the accused during investigation. As far as the defence version is concerned, it has not been proved. D.W.1, Ghulam Haider, Clerk Cooperative Society stated that the first informant had given an application for cooperative society loan in the year 1988. In cross-examination he admitted that the application could be placed on the file after the registration of the case.

5. For what has been discussed above the prosecution has established its case beyond doubt. Therefore, the appeal fails which is accordingly dismissed. B The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith for serving the remaining period of his sentence. Appeal is dismissed. N.H.Q./G-239/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.