1988 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 11th January, 1988. This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha, whereby he on 14‑11‑1987, convicted Saleh Muhammad appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and sentenced him to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.15,000 in default thereof six months' R.I.

2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.12,000 as illegal gratification from Mumtaz complainant for giving him better land. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined 6 witnesses. Mumtaz P.W.1 is complainant. He stated that Saleh Muhammad appellant had demanded and accepted Rs.12,000 as illegal gratification from him for making one big piece of scattered land of his father. Ghulam Muhammad P W.2, Muhammad Khan P.W.4 and Ameer P.W.5 have supported him. They stated that it was within their view that Saleh Muhammad had received Rs.12,000 as illegal gratification from complainant. Muhammad Hayat P.W.6 did not support the prosecution. So he was declared hostile and cross‑examined by the Prosecutor. Rai Ahmad Khan, Inspector, P.W.3 had investigated the case.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication. He explained that he was consolidation Patwari. Since he could not oblige the villagers who desire to get land of category No.1,so, he has been falsely involved in this case. In defence he did not produce any witness. He simply tendered Exh.DB, copy of judgment dated 2‑6‑1984 passed by Commissioner, Faisalabad. The appellant appeared as D.W.1 in disproof of the charge against him. The learned trial Court examined Ahmad Khan, father of Mumtaz complainant as C.W.1.

5. The learned trial Court while believing the statements made by Mumtaz, Ghulam Muhammad, Muhammad Khan and Ameer P.Ws. has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is a delay of 6 years in lodging the F . I . R . that the appellant remained posted in the Illaqa for 1976 to 1978 and the FIR was lodged after he was transferred; that no recovery has been effected from the appellant; that the names of the P.Ws. have not been mentioned was subsequently changed; that there are contradictions on the point of time of payment of bribe money, in statements of Mumtaz P.W.1 and Ahmad Khan C.W.1; that the statements of the P.Ws. with regard to the person to whom the bribe was paid are also inconsistent in that, Mumtaz P.W. stated that the money was paid by him whereas Ghulam Muhammad P.W.2 stated that the money was paid by Ahmad Khan to the appellant. Muhammad Khan P.W.4 stated that the money was paid by Ahmad son of Mumtaz to the appellant whereas Ameer P.W.5 stated that the money was paid by Khan Muhammad to the appellant. Ahmad Khan C.W.1 stated that he paid money to the appellant. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that there is inordinate delay of 6 years in lodging the report; that it is not a raid case; that the bribe money was not recovered from the appellant and that the ocular evidence suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies on the points of place of payment of bribe money, the time of payment of bribe money and the person who allegedly paid bribe money to the appellant, e.g. Ghulam Muhammad P.W.2 stated that Ahmad son of Sardar C.W.1 had paid Rs.12,000 to the appellant. Muhammad Khan P.W.4 stated that Ahmad son of Mumtaz had paid Rs.12,000 to the appellant. Ameer P.W.5 stated Khan P.W. had paid money to the appellant. Mumtaz P.W.1 stated that the money was paid at Sotawela. Ahmad Khan C.W. stated that the money was paid by him at morning time. Mumtaz P.W.1 stated that the money was paid in the house of Khan Muhammad. Ghulam Muhammad P.W.2 stated that the money was paid in the Baithak of Khan Muhammad. Ahmad Khan C.W.1 stated that the money was paid at the Dera of Khan Muhammad. The prosecution witnesses are closely related and, in the circumstances of the case, could have been easily induced to become witness against the appellant. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. For what has been said above, while giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, he is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. M. Y. H./S‑183/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.