1991 PCr (PLP)

Shaukat Hussain for the State. Khalid Javed Saleemi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th April, 1991. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal by State are that Bashir Ahmed was tried by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 9-12-1985 acquitted the respondent Bashir Ahmed under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. State has assailed the judgment. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court without resorting to coercive measures for compelling the attendance of the witnesses acquitted the respondent. Argued that the statement of Magistrate Ch. Riaz Ahmad and Inspector, Anti-Corruption Mehr Zulfiqar Ali was essential for the just decision of the case. The appeal has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that number of opportunities were afforded to them but they failed to appear, therefore, the learned trial Court had no choice but to conclude the respondent.

2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence as well as the judgment with his assistance. Statement of the complainant Abdul Ghafoor was recorded as P.W.1. He was also confronted with two letters which he had written when he was in jail in connection with income-tax case. In the said letters he had admitted that Mehr Zulfiqar Ali, Inspector, Anti-Corruption was very helpful to him, therefore, even volunteered to introduce a person in his statement who could be produced in defence of the respondent. He had also admitted that he was complainant in three cases. It is also in his statement that after paying the currency notes to the respondent he had signalled the Magistrate and Inspector, this would clearly indicate that they had not seen or heard the' conversation, therefore, this evidence was not material. Even otherwise it was the duty of State to have produced its evidence. The learned trial Court-had given number of opportunities to the prosecution to produce evidence but they failed. On three different dates of hearing consecutively they were afforded last opportunity, which they could not avail, therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in not issuing warrants of arrest against Magistrate. He was supposed to appear on the receipt of the notice being a judicial officer. Even otherwise the most important witness in this case is Abdul Ghafoor who did appear as P.W.1. His statement neither inspires confidence nor rings true. Admittedly he is a stock-witness. He had joined hands with respondents, therefore, took a somersault and made efforts to help the accused. This fact has been proved by means of letters written by him, which he duly accepted. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgment impugned, I find cogent reasons have been given to which no exception can be taken. Resultantly, the appeal fails which is accordingly dismissed. SA./S-934/L Appeal dismissed.