1989 PLP 3774 (MLD)

Since the first informant did not wish to pay the bribe, therefore, he approached the Anti‑Corruption Department which on his complaint registered the F.I.R. Exh. P.J. on 19‑1‑1982, and moved an application before the District Magistrate for nominating a Magistrate .to supervise the raid. Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din Bhatti, M.I.C., was accordingly deputed by A.D.C.(G). The learned Magistrate recorded the statement Exh. P.B. of Nazar Muhammad and also noted the numbers of the currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100 each. The raiding party went to Halqa Bhirri Shah Rehman. After a while the first informant came and informed that Altaf Ahmad was going to Gujranwala‑Hafizabad Road, therefore, they went to the said place and started waiting for him. After waiting for a considerable period, the appellant came at 5 p.m. and went to his office. In the meanwhile, the first informant went to meet the appellant and the raiding party also came near the office of the appellant. The raiding party witnessed the passing of the money to the appellant as well as they heard the appellant asking the first informant to come in the morning to his office. The learned Magistrate introduced himself, whereupon the appellant tried to resist and started grappling with the raiding party which continued for about four/five minutes. Thereafter, he took out Rs.200 from the pocket of his shirt and handed over to the raiding party. On comparison, the notes were the same which were given to the complainant to pass on to the appellant. The learned Magistrate again recorded the statement of the first informant Exh. P.K. and of the appellant Exh. P.E. The appellant was tried and convicted to nine months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000 on 2‑5‑1984, but on appeal the case was remanded to the trial Court for recording the statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. with the direction to put the statement Exh.PE of the appellant to him so that he may give some explanation. The learned trial Court complied with the direction of this Court and again convicted him on 25‑1‑1986 to the sentences already mentioned above.

3. The prosecution in support of its case produced four witnesses in all. PW‑1 Hamid‑ud‑Din Bhatti Magistrate gave a detail of the occurrence the way it transpired. He also stated that in his presence Rs.200 were passed on to the appellant and he heard him asking the first informant to come on the following day to get Abiana chit. At the time of his arrest the appellant resisted and grappled with the raiding party which recovered Rs.200 from the pocket of his shirt. Nazar Muhammad, PW‑3 supported the learned Magistrate about the occurrence and also stated that he lodged the FIR and made statement before the Magistrate as well. Muhammad Safdar Jajja, Inspector ACE, Gujranwala, PW‑4 corroborated the statement of PWs.1 and.3. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded innocence. In answer to a question, he stated that he did not make any statement before the Magistrate but his signatures were obtained on a blank paper by the Inspector. He also produced some defence witnesses and appeared on oath m his defence as well. Nazeer Ahmad DW‑1 was Chairman Union Council Sagar Kalan. He stated that the complainant was a police tout and got the present case falsely registered against the appellant. In cross‑examination he admitted that he did not appear before the investigating officer in defence of the appellant. Muhammad Rashid, DW‑2 produced the official record. Ghulam Rasool, Head Clerk, DW‑3 deposed that Muhammad Rafique, Zilladar was posted at Philoki section on 2‑1‑1982. Mehdi Hassan, DW‑4, MPA Punjab stated that on the day of incident he saw the appellant and the first informant present at the Adda of village Dera Shah Jamal where he saw the Magistrate, Inspector and Nazar Muhammad, first informant, quarrelling with each other. He also saw Nazar Muhammad PW trying to put something in the pocket of ‑the appellant who was resisting. In cross?examination he admitted that he did not make any application with regard to the innocence of the appellant to any authority. He also admitted that he did not even appear before the trial Court in the defence of the appellant before the case was remanded. The appellant also appeared in his defence on oath and stated that he had been falsely roped in the case. He never demanded any amount from the first informant.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant is highly doubtful. Submits that no reliance can be placed on the statement of the prosecution witnesses because their association with the raiding party and their waiting for five hours for the appellant to come and receive illegal gratification, on the face of it, is not plausible. Contends that the defence evidence is more convincing than the prosecution evidence. The contention have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.

5. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The prosecution has tried to prove its case by the evidence of the Magistrate, the first informant corroborated by the statement of the Inspector. I have carefully gone through the statements of these witnesses and find that they were cross‑examined at length but the defence has not been able to bring on record anything to indicate that the Magistrate was not present at the spot or he did not see the money being accepted by the appellant. As a matter of fact, this part of the statement of the Magistrate has not even been challenged in cross?examination. The mere fact that the raiding party had to wait for about five hours for the appellant at the appointed place would not mean that they are not truthful witnesses. As far as the defence of the appellant is concerned, I do not think that it can be of much use to him. The DWs deposed about the innocence of the appellant for the first time before the Court. Prior to that they were convinced about the innocence of the appellant yet never bothered to approach the authorities to appraise them of this fact. None of the DWs has stated that he saw the appellant and the first informant together before the grappling. All the defence witnesses were attracted to the spot when there was grappling between the raiding party and the appellant: In these circumstances, the statement of the defence witnesses cannot be of any use at all because they were not even present when the money was passed on to the appellant by the first informant. For what has been discussed above, I hold that the prosecution witnesses inspire confidence and can safely be relied upon. Resultantly, the appeal fails which is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve the remaining portion of his sentence. SA./A‑682/L Appeal dismissed.