' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ,J-- On 10-6-1999, Muhammad Islam Badshah filed application Exh.P.W.1/A before an Additional Director, ACE, Rawalpindi. It was stated that on (there are cuttings and the date is not legible) he along with his companions was going from Rawalpindi to Hazro when an Excise Party and Income Tax party was present near Sanjani who stopped them. He was told to produce the documents of the vehicle Bearing No,DRA 525 double cabin in which they were travelling. He was then told that he is liable to pay wealth tax. He told them that this is a commercial vehicle and the tax is not payable and besides it is not registered in Punjab. They then told him that they will confiscate the car. Two officials sat down in the vehicle along with them and came to Excise Office, Rawalpindi. They demanded Rs,25,000 as illegal gratification and the matter was settled at Rs,10,000. They then obtained a writing from him to the effect that he will come the next day and if the tax is payable then the same shall be paid and they told him that the writing has been obtained for their protection. They then released the car. He was then told to come to Rose Cinema next day along with the money and kept his licence which was to be returned on payment of money and in case he did not turn up proceedings will be taken. Now he does not want to pay the remaining Rs,7,000 and he wants to pay Rs,5,000 as illegal gratification and to get a raid.
It is then added that he came to know later on that the name of the Clerk is Nadeem and the name of Inspector is Mukhtar. On the same day, Abdul Majeed, DSP, ACE, requested ADC(G), Rawalpindi, for appointing a Magistrate to over see the raid. The Cantt Magistrate was directed to supervise the raid. At 2-15 p.m. The Magistrate recorded the statement of Muhammad Islam Badshah. Now in this statement he stated that on 10-6-1999 he along with Abdul Wahab Shah and Abdul Malik Shah was going to Hazro when they were stopped near Taxila by the Excise people who demanded the papers of the said vehicle. There was an A.C., Wealth Tax, who was bald, Clerk Nadeem and Inspector Mukhtar Gondal who told him that they are liable to pay wealth tax in respect of the said vehicle. He stated that the vehicle is commercial whereupon A.C., Wealth Tax, said that he does not accept the said contention. Then Mukhtar and A.C., Wealth Tax, told him that if he pays Rs,25,000 the car will be released. The vehicle was brought to Excise Office and they were released when they paid Rs,3,000 as bribe. They also demanded Rs,7,000 but he begged them and the matter was settled at Rs,5,000. His driving licence was kept as "Amanat". Thereafter, five notes P.2 to P.6 were marked and initialed by the Magistrate and handed over to the said complainant. At 2-40 p.m.
They reached the Excise Office and sent the complainant inside. At 2-50 p.m., he came out and told them that nobody is present in the office. The date for raid was fixed as 14-6-1999. On this date at 9-00 a.m. Abdul Majeed Lodhi, DSP and Constables Maqsood and Manzoor Hussain along with the complainant and, the Magistrate reached the Excise Office. At 9-20 a.m., the complainant was sent inside and he was told the signal he was to give. At 9-30 a.m. The complainant came out of the office and gave the signal and the raiding party entered the office. Nadeem Clerk was searched and the said five notes were recovered from pocket of his shirt.
' Mukhtar, Inspector, was searched and the driving licence was recovered from him. Mukhtar Ahmad stated that the vehicle which is a double cabin SSR was stopped. The occupant only had a photocopy of the registration book and a driving licence. He was told that luxury vehicle tax in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 is payable and that the vehicle will be impounded. They handed over a sum of Rs,3,000 towards tax and also the licence and assured them that they will come to the office and if the tax is payable they will pay the same. He stated that he had never demanded or received any bribe money.
2. Nadeem stated in the same terms regarding the stopping of the car and demand for the said tax. He stated that the complainant come to the office on 14-6-1999 (i.e, the same day). Since the superior officers were not present to assess the exact amount of tax, the complainant told him that further amount of Rs,5,000 be given to the Inspector and the balance amount shall be paid after one or two days. He also stated that he had neither demanded nor received any bribe.
3. A case under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was registered vide F.I.R. No,16 dated 14-6-1999 at Police Station Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi Region. The appellants were sent up for trial. They were charged under the said provisions of law. They pleaded not guilty. Evidence of the prosecution was recorded. Statements of the appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. They did not make statements under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And no defence evidence was produced. Vide judgment dated 15-11-1999 the learned Special Judge found the appellants guilty. They were convicted under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to two years R.I. Each and a fine of Rs,15,000 each or in default to undergo six months' R.I.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contend that an absolutely bogus case was made against their clients. The witnesses could not have been relied upon and there is no evidence on record that any illegal gratification was ever demanded or paid. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned conviction and sentence.
5. I have gone through the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already stated in some detail the contents of the said complaint and the raid that took place. Now, as noted by me above, there are interpolations and cuttings in ,the said complaint. It bears the date 12-6-1999. It appears that the word "{{URDU TEXT}} " was overwritten and sought to be obliterated. Thereafter, in the second line it is apparent to a naked eye that the words {{URDU TEXT}} were added later with a different pen and ink (of course there is) no mention at all of the said companions or their particulars in the entire complaint D.W. 1/A. Then/towards end/the words {URDU TEXT}} were also added later with different pen, ink and hand.
6. Now it is stated in the said Complaint Exh. P.W.1/A, dated 12-6-1999 that the complainant was told by the said unnamed officials that they should come the next day to Rose Cinema at 7-30 (it is not clear whether it is a.m. Or p.m.) with the money. However, according to the said report of the raid Exh.P.1/B, the statement of the said complainant was recorded wherein he gave the names and particulars of said Abdul Wahab and Abdul Malik. He stated that it was an A.C., Wealth Tax who confronted him and told him that the tax is payable and refused to accept his contention that the vehicle is commercial and that it was the A.C., Wealth Tax and Mukhtar who asked him to pay Rs,25,000 for releasing the vehicle. Thereafter, it is strange that despite the fact that it is in complaint P.W.1/A, that the complainant was asked by the appellants to come to Rose Cinema at 7-30, the raiding party proceeded to the Excise Office at 2-35 p.m. On 12-6-1999 when complainant went inside and then came out to state that nobody is present in the office. It was then on 14-6- 1999 that the raiding party again went to the Excise Office at 9-20 a.m. The complainant went inside the office and at 9-30 a.m. He came out and gave the signal. Now according to the report the five tainted notes were recovered from Nadeem and the licence was recovered from Mukhtar and the said complainant in his statement of the same day stated that the recovery has been so made. Now the said complainant Muhammad Islam Badshah appeared as P.W.1 and stated in his examination-in- A chief that the currency notes were recovered from the pocket of Nadeem while the raiding party did not search any other person. He then further reiterated that the licence Exh. P.1 and currency notes Exhs.P.2 to P.6 were recovered from Nadeem accused. Now so far as the statement of complainant is concerned, P.W.3 Zulfiqar Ahmad Magistrate and P.W.4 Abdul Majeed Lodhi, A.D. (I) Police Station A.C.E., Rawalpindi when confronted with the relevant portions of the statement made by the said complainant categorically stated that the P.W.1 had made a false statement.
7. Needless to state that Magistrate or any other member of the raiding party did not hear or see any conversation or any B activity that transpired between the appellants and the said complainant.
8. Having thus examined the records, I do agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the entire affair is cooked up from beginning to end. The learned Special Judge has completely misread the records. The criminal appeal accordingly is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charge. The appellants are on bail, the sureties are discharged.