1983 P Cr (PLP)

4. The case of the appellant is of false implication, as according to him, he had already challaned the appellant for three four times, due to which the appellant bore ill will, grudge and malice with him.

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

6. The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted as under :‑ (a) That the prosecution story is improbable and false. (b) That the complainant had an admitted enmity with the appellant on account of the fact, that the appellant had challaned the complainant for traffic offences. (c) That there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses inter se. (d) That the tainted notes were neither marked or initialled by the Magistrate.

7. In view of the above submissions the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted, that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon case reported in 1981 P Cr. L J 1086.

8. The learned Advocate appearing for the State at the outset submitted, that he was not supporting the impugned judgment in question, in view of the above grounds narrated by the learned Advocate for the appellant and on account of the fact that the sanction for prosecution suffers from legal locuna, as even the date of the sanction was not mentioned, thereon.

9. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R & P of the learned trial Court as well as the case, cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant.

10. Prosecution case rests upon the statements of P. Ws. Muhammad Ramzan (Magistrate), S. Nazar Ali (Mashie), Maroof (Complainant) and Masood Abdul Khan (I. O.). I have gone through their statements. I ‑find material contradictions in the statements of these P. Ws. about the dress, which appellant was wearing at the time of his arrest. It is admitted position, that Magistrate was standing on opposite foot‑path on a road, which 6 normally a very busy road. Mashir of recovery of alleged tainted money from possession of appellant does not belong to the locality, which is full of restaurants. It is admitted position, that tainted money was not initiated by the learned Magistrate, before the same was handed over to complainant P. W. Maroof. It is also admitted position, that appellant, previous to this trap had challaned complainant for traffic offences couple of times and hence enmity alleged by the appellant gets prima facie support from the admission of the complainant on this account, in his cross‑examination otherwise statements of P. Ws. do not inspire confidence, on account of material contradictions inter se between them on various facts. Presence of P. Ws. A Nazar Ali (Mashir) is doubtful as he stated before the learned trial Court, that appellant was in uniform, whereas P. W. Muhammad Ramzan (Magistrate) has categorically stated, that appellant was not in uniform, when hg was apprehended. In view of this, statement of appellant that P. W. Maroof (complainant) has falsely implicated him in this case due to enmity cannot be ignored.

11. Keeping in view the above observations, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.

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