1985 P Cr (PLP)

Abul Fateh for the State. Date of hearing: 4th July, 1984. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 21‑12‑1976 convicted Muhammad Screed appellant under section 161 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 9 months' R.I.

2. The appellant was working as Patwari (Consolidation). The charge against him was that he demanded and obtained 5 sheep, one dog and other cattle and cash as illegal gratification from Sardar complainant P.W. to arrange for him superior land during the course of consolidation. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Sardar P.W.3 stated that the appellant had obtained from him five sheep, one dog and one bullock as illegal gratification for giving him better land during consolidation operation but he failed to accommodate him. Bashir P.W.4 and Sardar son of Muhammad " Din, P.W.5 supported the complainant. On the report made by the complainant, a raiding party comprising of Khushi Muhammad P.1N.2, Sardar Muhammad P.W.3 and Muhammad Ayyub, Circle Officer P.W.11 under the supervision of Muhammad Younas, Tehsildar P.WA was organized. Fateh Muhammad P.W.9 was also joined at Pir Kot. Sardar Muhammad complainant picked out and identified his sheep and dog which were taken into possession by the Magistrate vide memo. Exh. P.W.1/E.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances and produced witnesses in his defence.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant had not given the land of his choice to the complainant, therefore, he falsely involved him. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State 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 no raid was conducted at the time when the cattles were handed over by the complainant to the appellant; that it was very easy to adduce oral evidence to the effect that the cattles were given to the appellant; that since the land of his choice could not be given to the complainant, therefore, he was annoyed with the appellant and that there is no independent corroboration of the statement of the complainant. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the appellant. Giving him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge. M.Y.H. Appeal accepted.