1. ORDER MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J. - Respondent Rana Muhammad Irshad was tried by Special Judge Anti-Corruption Sargodha Camp at Khushab in case F.I.R. No. 1, dated 8.3.2005 for the offence under Section 161, P.P.C. Read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at Police Station Anti- Corruption Establishment, Khushab who vide judgment dated 21.4.2006 while extending benefit of doubt in favour of respondent acquitted him from the charge and now the complainant f the said case has filed this appeal against acquittal.
2. In brief the prosecution case is that complainant is a Government Contractor and different projects were allotted to him including the Schemes village Waheer and Nari. Allegedly Rana Muhammad Irshad respondent used to receive through a person illegal gratification who was Assistant Tehsil Officer of the area. According to the prosecution case he demanded Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- advance for the said Scheme, but since the complainant was not willing to give the bribe, he reported the matter to the Circle Officer Anti-Corruption Establishment, Khushab when formal F.I.R.
3. Was registered and thereafter Mr. Khizar Hayat, Judicial Magistrate (PW5) was deputed to conduct raid, the Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant as Ex.PB as well as noted serial number of ten currency notes of rupees one thousand each denomination Ex.-PH 1/10 and handed over the same to the complainant who passed y\ the said tainted money to accused in his Office at Khushab, Subsequently the raid was conducted and the said tainted money was recovered from the custody of respondent, which as taken into custody vide recovery memo. Ex.PC. Raiding Magistrate also recorded the statement of respondent who deposed in the following manner:- {{Urdu Text}} Thereafter, agency after complying with legal formalities submitted challan before the Trial Court, where the prosecution produced five witnesses including the complainant and the said Magistrate.
4. Learned Trial Court also examined respondent under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Who while denying the charges took the following plea:- "It is the common practice throughout the Punjab that the Officers Incharge like myself of the schemes under construction and in progress are always interested .In completion of the scheme by or before the target date. In order to achieve the object we the incharge officers extend co- operation and accommodation to the contractors over and above the terms and conditions of the contract. The complainant contractor was not in a position to complete the scheme within the stipulated being raw hand in the field of construction and also being short of funds at hie disposal.
5. The complainant contractor sought my .Assistance, My priority was to get completed the scheme before the target date. By adopting the above said common practice 'I borrowed, and purchased on credit pipes from Noor Pipes, dealers of Shaheen Pipe's Lahore for Rs: 2,45,450/-. The complainant ' could not pay the above-said amount to the above said supplier within time. I forced and persuaded the complainant contractor to pay the above said amount To the above said authorized supplier who provided him the required articles on credit on my assurance and guarantee. The complainant contractor paid Rs. 2,25,000/- to the above said supplier unwillingly and in this way Rs. 20,450/- were due to the company from the complainant contractor. I again approached the complainant contractor and, compelled him to make the payment of outstanding amount, which caused annoyance to him. On '8.3.2005 the complainant contractor met me in my office and paid Rs. 10,000/- P1 to P10 with a request that same may be passed on to the above said supplier for adjustment against the outstanding amount. I received the amount in good faith, but in the meantime a raiding Magistrate alongwith officials of ACE came there and recovered the said amount. I was shocked to know that the complainant contractor deceitfully got me involved in a false case.
6. Seven after the recovery I put forward my defence version to the above effect Ex.PK promptly. The Investigating Agency did not inquire into the matter on facts and on merits and mechanicality/blindly challaned me to Court on the asking of the influential elite of the district.
7. I was not the final authority in the; case. My only function was to supervise the work at site and to forward to work order and other papers to the Tehsil Municipal Officer. On 15.2.2005 I forwarded the work order at other papers to the authority pertaining to the scheduled items of the scheme whereas the work order in respect of non-scheduled items of the schemes were submitted to the authority on 11.1.2005. On 8.3.2005 I had nothing to with the schemes in question, as all the relevant documents and papers were lying with the authority. Tha uncle of the contractor complainant was District Councilor and was, also in ruling group of District Nazim. The complainant successfully used rather misused the administrative and political position of the District Nazim, Khushab and got me involved in this false case. The .Complainant contractor got involved other officials in cases of similar nature."
8. Respondent also produced Muhammad Atiq Arshad DW.1 and Muhammad Ramzan. DW.2. The crux of the statements of witnesses is that Khan Muhammad Contractor at Khushab District C/O Rana Arshad respondent placed an order before Noor Pipe Store, Lahore for supply of pipes for the schemes fully described in the order available on the record as Ex.DD.
9. Learned Trial Court while extending benefit of doubt in favour of respondent acquitted him from the charge.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record I have observed that the tainted money was never passed on to respondent by the complainant of this case within the view of raiding party nor the raiding Magistrate (PW.5) heard the conversion which took place between the complainant and respondent before the money was handed over to the respondent. No doubt the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of respondent by the said raiding Magistrate, but it is not clear as to what had transpired between the parties i.e. Complainant and respondent, before the said transaction. In this view of the matter it is difficult to say that the stand taken up by the respondent before the Trial. Court has no substance. Especially, when the same plea wa:f taken by the respondent before the Magistrate immediately after the raid and two of the defence witnesses have also deposed in favour of the said defence plea.
11. It is well-settled that there is double presumptions of innocence in favour of acquitted accused, firstly every person is innocent unless proved guilty and second he has. earned acquittal from a Court of competent jurisdiction and to set aside the said order of acquittal very strong and exceptional grounds are required. On the other hand facts of this case reveal that possibility of truth ness of defence plea could not be ruled out arid thus in the circumstances in my view the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted respondent from the charge. The reasons given by the Trial Court while acquitting respondent are neither perverse nor arbitrary or artificial and the impugned judgment does not call for interference of this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. This appeal having no merits stands dismissed,