' It appears that perhaps the appellant is not interested to pursue this appeal any more. I proceed to dispose it of on merits.
2. Sheikh Allaud Din, the appellant has brought the instant appeal challenging the acquittal of respondent No.2, Rana Abdul Rehman, Patwari vide the judgment dated 12-10-2002 recorded by Mian Sajjad Ahmad Chawan, the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan in case F.I.R. No.25 dated 4-5-2001, under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act-II of 1947, with Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan.
3. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that the appellant was tried under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act-II of 1947 in the aforementioned case. The allegation against him therein was that he in the year 2001 demanded Rs.1,00,000 as bribe from the appellant Sheikh Allaud Din for getting employment to his son Sheikh Muhammad Ameer. The matter was settled between them at Rs.70,000. The appellant paid him Rs.50,000 as advance out of the same in presence of Sadiq and Muhammad Afzal. The remaining amount was to be paid by him on getting appointment letter. He neither got employment to him nor returned the amount despite demand.
4. He was formally charged under the aforementioned section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act-II of 1947. He pleaded not guilty.
5. The prosecution in his trial has examined it's as many as five witnesses. They are Sheikh Allaud Din (P.W.1), Muhammad Afzal (P.W.2), Sadiq Muhammad (P.W.3), Muhammad Ashraf, Circle Officer (P.W.4) and Mahr Javed Iqbal, Circle Officer (P.W.5).
6. He (respondent No.2) in his examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegation appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded that his son Abdul Rahim and one Wakeel Khan, the husband of sister-in-law of the appellant had jointly purchased wagon. Wakeel Khan had concealed the same. On demand of Abdul Rahim, Iqbal the husband of sister of respondent No.2 executed pronote in favour of Wakeel Khan. As the respondent No.2 did not pay the money to him (Wakeel Khan), so he got registered the instant case through the appellant.
7. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties acquitted him of the charge giving him the benefit of doubt.
8. The appellant feeling aggrieved of the same has come up with the instant appeal.
9. I have gone through the impugned judgment very carefully.
10. The learned trial Court while acquitting respondent No.2 besides others has taken into consideration the ground that the matter between the parties, if at all, it may be taken as it is was in the personal capacity of respondent No.2 and not official. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the case of Ganhwar v. The State PLD 1975 Karachi 239.
11. This observation of the learned trial Court seemingly is correct. As the transaction between the parties, if it may be taken as it is was in respondent No. l's personal capacity and not official. He was not in a position to get employment to the son of the appellant. He if aL all, for the sake of arguments, had received the said amount from him, it was in no way under the colour of his office.
Thus, the reliance of the learned trial Court in this regard on the aforementioned esteemed authority was apt and appropriate..
12. The learned trial Court has based it's finding on other reasons besides the one discussed above.
As the finding of his acquittal neither is perverse nor arbitrary, hence. I do not feel the necessary to discuss other grounds on which the same was based as it is settled proposition in law that even one reason, which may be recognized in law can he sufficient to base the order of Court and for that matter many are not required.
13. I, therefore, find that the acquittal of the respondent No.2 in no case was either perverse or improper. The impugned judgment is well reasoned and is based upon the evidence on record.
14. There thus no valid exception to be taken to the same. The appeal, thus is dismissed summarily in accordance with the provisions of section 421, Cr.P.C.
Appeal against acquittal dismissed.