This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 26.01.1999 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan Camp at Sahiwal through which he convicted the appellant under Section 420 PPC and Section 5(2)47 of PCA and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo SI for three months.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Ali Sher S/o Mamura filed an application before Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal against Ali Sher S/o Sardar Muhammad, appellant through which he leveled allegation against the appellant the he being Naib Qasid has received Rs.24,200/- fraudulently from him with the promise that he will get appointment for his son. That application was marked to Assistant Director, Local Government for inquiry who after conducting inquiry recommended the same to Cricle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sahiwal for legal action. A case FIR No, 9 dated 19.2.1998 under Section 161 PPC read with Section 5(2)47 of PCA was registered with Police Station, ACE, Sahiwal and challan was submitted in the trial Court on 19.02.1998. Charge was framed by the trial Court on 10.7.1998. The prosecution had produced as many as six witnesses.
Wali Muhammad, Inspector appeared as PW-1, who stated that he arrested the appellant and sent him to the jail on judicial remand. PW-2 Bashir Ahmad, Assistant Director, Local Government deposed that application was marked to him by Deputy Commissioner against the appellant for enquiry. He received affidavit of Ali Sher S/o Mamura, appellant Exh. PB, affidavit of Ali Sher, accused/appellant Exh. PC and conceding statement of Ali Sher, accused was reduced to writing by him as Exh. PD. Zafar Iqbal, Inspector/CO appeared as PW-3 and made a detail statement.
Ramzan son of the complainant appeared as PW-4, Ghulam Mustafa, grand son of the complainant appeared as PW-5 and Ali Sher, complainant appeared as PW-6. After concluding of prosecution evidence statement of the accused, Ali Sher was recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.0 then the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above. Hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that neither in the application Exh. PA nor in the inquiry report prepared by PW-2 date, time or place of occurrence has been mentioned. Both the application do not disclose names of eye-witnesses. He submits that PW2 Bashir Ahmad, Assistant Director, Local Government categorically stated that the complainant has no documentary or oral evidence regarding commission of offence. Initially the allegation was leveled by the complainant that the appellant has extorted Rs.24,200/- for service of his son but later on some dishonest improvements were made during the trial and above-said amount was bifurcated i.e Rs. 13,800/- for service of Ramzan son of the complainant and Rs.10,400/- for service of Ghulam Mustafa grand son of complainant. Another improvement was made by the PW that accused Ali Sher delivered a bogus appointment letter which was later on got back by him but neither the bogus appointment letter nor any witness thereof was produced. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there are major discrepancies in the statements of the PWs and stand taken by the appellant that he has been victimized due to rivalry between two politicians is established. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that initially case was registered under Section. 161 Cr.P.0 read with Section 5(2) 47 of PCA but later on charge was framed under Section 420 PPC and Section 5(2)47 of PCA. He submits that appellant is facing agony of inquiries, investigation and trial since 1995. He is a poor man and class-IV civil servant and has been involved in this case due to political rivalry.
4. Learned DPG has opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that guilt of the appellant was proved during inquiry as well as in the trial. The prosecution has successfully established its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. He submits that the trial Court has already taken lenient view and awarded him sentence of two years. He prayed for dismissal of appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The case against the appellant was initially registered under Section 161 PPC but the trial Court while taking cognizance of case, summoned the appellant under Section 420 PPC and Section 5(2)
47 of PCA and the charge was framed under the said sections. No eye-witness was mentioned in the application filed by the complainant before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal. The Inquiry Officer PW-2 also find that complainant has no documentary or oral evidence regarding the commission of offence. Ali Sher, Complainant while appearing the commission of offence. Ali Sher, complainant while appearing as PW-6 repeated the allegation that the appellant has received Rs.
24,200/- from him for appointment of his son in service. In cross-examination he made dishonest improvements that at the time of giving the amount to the appellant, his son Ramzan and Ghulam Mustafa were present. Ghulam Mustafa, PW-5 states that he had given Rs. 10.400/ for his appointment to his grand father Ali Sher, complainant who given the same to the accused in his presence. He gave the above said amount in the Baitakh of complainant. Ramzan, PW-4 also made improvement in his statement and tried to connect the appellant with commission of offence. In the three statements of all PWs, date, time and place of receiving of amount by the appellant is not mentioned. It is admitted that during inquiry by Assistant Director, Local Government, name of any witness was not mentioned by the complainant but latter on the statement of PWs-4 & 5 was managed and case was developed against the appellant dishonestly.
The appellant is Naib. Qasid class-IV employee of Local Government. He had suffered a lot since 1995.
7. For what been discussed above, this appeal is accepted the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Multan Camp at Sahiwal vide Judgment dated 26.01.1999 is set-aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges by giving him benefit of doubt.