1985 P Cr (PLP)

Dates of hearing: 3rd and 13th April, 1985. These two Criminal Appeals Nos. 231 of 1976 by Bashir Ahmad and 238 of 1976 by Manzoor Ahmad arise from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 3‑3‑1976 convicted them under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced them to one year's R.I. each. I propose to dispose of these two appeals through single judgment.

2. Bashir Ahmad was a Line Superintendent whereas Manzoor Ahmad was a Lineman posted at WAPDA Office, Faisalabad. The charge against them was that they demanded and accepted Rs.180 as illegal gratification from Abdus Satter P.W.3. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined six witnesses. Abdus Satter P.W.2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of Rs.180 as illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Syed Shaukat Ali Shah, Magistrate P.W.1 and Riaz Hashmat Khan S.C.O. Anti‑Corruption Establishment P.W.6 were produced to prove acceptance of tainted currency notes by and recovery thereof from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. They raised the plea of false implication. Bashir Ahmed did not lead any defence. Manzoor Ahmed Lineman produce in defence, Muhammad Salim D.W.1 who stated that the brother of Abdus Satter complainant is nephew of Riaz Hashmat Khan S.C.O. P.W.6.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the Magistrate and the Inspector Anti‑Corruption had not seen the money changing hands; and that the money was not recovered from the physical possession of the appellants. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the physical possession of the appellants; that the statements of the Magistrate and the complainant suffer from infirmities such as material contradictions and discrepancies e.g. the Magistrate stated that the money was paid to Manzoor by the complainant whereas the complainant says that he had handed over the tainted currency notes to Bashir who further passed on to Manzoor Ahm0d; that the Magistrate had not seen the passing on of the money by the complainant to the appellants. He stated that he had assessed from the talk between the complainant and the accused, which was over‑heard by him, that the money was paid by the complainant to Manzoor appellant that as far the nature of transaction, the statement of the complainant alone remains in field upon which I do not desire to place implicit reliance. No doubt the two appellants have made contradictory statements taut they being favourite child of law hold licence of telling lies and cannot be punished for that. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt‑. For what has been stated above, giving them the benefit of doubt, the appellants are acquitted of the charge. S.G.D Appeal allowed