1993 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1992. Muhammad Arshad, Lineman WAPDA, the appellant was tried by Special Judge (Central), Lahore for offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, convicted vide judgment, dated 30-5-1989 and sentenced to one year's R.I. He has appealed.

2. Rashid Ahmad complainant (P.W.3) lodged the F.I.R. (Exh.P.J.) with Muhammad Siddiq, Inspector (P.W.4) on 6-2-1985. His version was that the electric transformer of the village got burnt and for its repair/change WAPDA office Wazirabad was contacted. The appellant Lineman visited the village and demanded Rs.1,600 an illegal gratification for the repair. He also told that the, illegal gratification was required for himself as well as the Line Superintendent and S.D.O. Final settlement was made at Rs.800. Rs.500 were paid to him in advance. He tried to repair the transformer at the spot but failed and so it was taken by him to Gujranwala. He also received Rs.150 as Octroi charges. Now when he had been contacted to install the transformer, he demanded Rs.200 more. As it was not desired to give further illegal gratification so, the report.

3. Lal Muhammad Chohan (P.WA) was posted as Magistrate, Gujranwala on 6-2-1985. Under the order of the District Magistrate he recorded the statement of the complainant (Exh.P.B.), noted the numbers of the two currency notes (P.1 and P.2) and as incharge of the raiding party reached village Kot Inayatullah where the appellant was learnt to be in village Bhatti Mansoor where the complainant reached the appellant in School, advanced the two currency notes and on signal lie raided and recovered the currency notes and recorded the statement of the appellant (Exh.P.E.). The appellant was arrested by the Inspector and challaned to Court. The version given in the F.I.R. and the raid proceedings stated to by the Magistrate are fully corroborated by Rashid Ahmad complainant (P.W.3) and Muhammad Siddiq, Inspector (P.W.4).

4. The appellant in his statement at the close of the trial when asked "Why this case against you"? replied:-- "The transformer of village Chak Dadan was repaired by M.N.T. Workshop, Gujranwala. Rashid Ahmad, P.W.3 asked me to bring the transformer by some tractor trolley. He offered me currency notes P.1 and P.2 as fare of the tractor trolley but, I refused to accept that amount. Rashid Ahmad P.W.3 was my enemy. Tube-wells of Muhammad Yousaf first cousin of P.W.3 had been disconnected by Muhammad Mushtaq my first cousin in 1982. Yousaf offered assistance there. F.I.R. No.65 was registered on 19-3-1982 at Police Station Saddar Wazirabad. P.W.3 filed a civil suit against WAPDA in 1985." He also produced Shahbaz Hussain, A.L.M., WAPDA, Wazirabad and Mushtaq Hussain Lineman and Muhammad Aslam (D.Ws.1 to 3). According to the statement of the P.Ws. the transformer required repair, was taken to Gujranwala and more money was being demanded as illegal gratification by the appellant which actually was advanced and recovered in the raid by the Magistrate. In his statement (Exh.P.E.) recorded just after the raid, the appellant rather admitted the receipt of money but this, according to him, was received as charges for repair etc. determined by his superiors. It is clear from the statement of Shehbaz Hussain (D.W.1) that the appellant had received Rs. 200 as the fare of the tractor trolley for taking the transformer from Gujranwala to the spot. He also told that Muhammad. Arshad informed that he was to bring the transformer by WAPDA vehicle. In cross-examination he admitted that the transformers are transported in the WAPDA vehicles and a Lineman cannot get any amount from any person as transportation charges. The charge was, therefore, correctly held to be proved against the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the money, even if received, was received by the appellant under the orders of his superiors and as repair/fair charges. The argument must be rejected. It was the duty of WAPDA to repair the transformer and to install at the spot. No maintenance or fare charges could have been recovered from the complainant or any other consumers of the village. The argument is of no avail.

6. The upshot is that appeal against conviction fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that he had undergone the agony of a long trial, had been in jail as well and had been removed from service, so a lenient view be taken in the i matter of sentence. Maintaining the conviction the sentence is reduced to already undergone and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default thereof four months' R.I. He is granted one month's time to deposit the line in the learned trial Court otherwise he would be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence. Rs.800 out of the fine, if realised, shall be paid to Rashid Ahmad complainant as compensation. N.H.Q./M-758/L Sentence reduced.