2005 PLP 550 (YLR)

Syed Faisal Raza Bokhari for the State. Rai Muhammad Zafar Bhatti for Respondents Nos.1 to

6. Muhammad Ashraf Nawaz Cheema for Respondent No.7. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26‑8‑2003 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha whereby the learned Special Court, on an application filed by the accused persons under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. acquitted the respondents who were arrayed as accused in the complainant case filed by the appellant/complainant under sections 218/468/471/420/109, P.P.C. read with section, 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the complaint was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, while calling in question the impugned order of acquittal of the respondents and dismissal of complaint, submits that although the application under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned trial Court on behalf of few accused persons but the learned‑Special Court has acquitted all the accused/respondents from the case without even recording any evidence coupled with dismissal of the complaint case which has led to miscarriage of justice. Further submits that it would be in the paramount interest of the parties if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is decided on merit by the learned trial Court.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 6, while defending the impugned order of acquittal, submits that there was no probability of the respondents/accused to be convicted by the learned trial Court because there is no allegation of acceptance of the alleged bribery by the respondents. Advancing his arguments, learned counsel further submits that the inquiry in this case was conducted under the orders of the competent authority wherein it was found that not a single inch of the land in question has been taken away by any of the respondents or even through collusion of the respondents from the present appellant; that on the same facts F.I.R. was recorded against two persons while the complaint was filed by the complainant against seven persons/ respondents; that in F.I.R. No.105 there was no allegation of corruption against the present respondents while there are wild allegations against two persons while in the complaint four persons have been made as an accused in addition to the above said two persons. While concluding his arguments, submits that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or material irregularity to warrant interference by this Honourable Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 submits that the alleged occurrence took place on 10‑12‑1996, respondent No.7 was posted there on 17‑12‑1996 meaning thereby than he was not present but despite that he has been summoned.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the impugned order dated 26‑8‑2003 and have also given anxious consideration to their respective submissions made at the bar. The points raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties need deeper appreciation of evidence of the parties concerned which would entail factual inquiry. This exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court while sitting in the appellate jurisdiction. It is the prerogative of the learned trial Court to have reached at a just conclusion after recording of evidence of the parties so tendered oral or documentary. I find that not a single witness has been recorded by the learned‑ trial Court. In the afore‑referred circumstances, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 26‑8‑2003 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha is set aside, the complaint filed by the appellant shall be deemed to be pending and the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 28‑10‑2004 to proceed with the matter. The record of the trial Court shall be sent back forthwith. H.B.T./A‑329/L Case remanded.