Malik Muhammad Anwar petitioner stands arrested in case F.I.R. No 14 of 2010 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Chakwal on 27.9.2010 for the offences under Sections 161 PPC read with Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the complaint of Muhammad Younas, who has precisely, alleged in the F.I.R that he was an employees at Kohinoor Mills; he alongwith two other co-workers moved an application for obtaining talent scholarship as announced by the Government for his Three children, before District Officer, Labour, Chakwal, Muhammad Anwar (petitioner) who received Rs, 1000/- for each application from him and demanded Rs, 2000/- more, per child, so as to deliver him the cheques qua the talent scholarship amount; he was a poor man and could not afford to pay carrots to the accused, time and again but he was being compelled by the Labour Officer to pay him Rs, 6000/- as bribe for the three cheques.
2. Khalid Mehmood, C.0, Police Station, ACE, Chakwal moved are application with the request that a permission for conducting raid may be granted upon the bribe demanding accused, before the learned Sessions Judge, Chakwal, whereupon he (learned Sessions Judge) deputed Mr. Ehtisham Muqarab, learned Judicial Magistrate to supervise the raid in accordance with law, who reduced the statement of the complainant into writing, put his initials on currency notes worth Rs, 6000/- and returned the same to the complainant. The learned, Magistrate joined by other members of the raiding party, on receipt of a signal from the complainant, conducted the raid, apprehended the petitioner and recovered the tainted currency notes from the drawer of the office table of the petitioner-accused which were secured by the C.O/I.O through a memo. of recovery.
3. The complainant as per receipt dated 24.9.2010, received a sum of Rs, 12,000/- through cross Cheque No, 70255421 dated 1.9.2010 from the accused-petitioner regarding award of talent scholarship which fact is also born out from the register Qabz-ul-Vasool wherein, this entry stands registered at serial No 21, with the signatures of Muhammad Younas, complainant.
4. Malik Muhammad Anwar, District Officer, Labour (petitioner) recorded his version before the learned Magistrate after the proceedings of the raid, that he had a quarrel with Muhammad Younas complainant four days ago as he had refused to affix the adhesive stamps, at the time of receipt of the above-said cheques, but despite that, he delivered him the cheques of the scholarship amount; he further contended that Muhammad Younas complainant had visited him at noon time, the same day and shared rice, "Biryani" with him; he after taking the meal went to the lavatory to wash his hands, leaving complainant in his office, who, most probably, had dropped the tainted amount in the drawer of the office table; he lastly contended that he had never demanded any bribe from the complainant; the learned Magistrate prepared a report to this effect and handed over the same to the Circle Officer for further investigation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case under a calculated conspiracy, hatched up by the complainant and his witnesses and the petitioner had never demanded bribe from him; the petitioner being a District Officer, Labour had already delivered the cheque of the talent scholarship amount to the complainant on 24..9.2010 without any extenuating consideration so there was no question of receipt of any bribe from him on 27.9.2010; the contention of the complainant also stands negated through the documentary evidence including a receipt dated 24.9.2010 and the entries of the register Qabz-ul-Vasool; the complainant is a cynical person who has managed the whole drama to avenge the previous heated debate between him and the petitioner on the issue of affixation of the adhesive stamps on the cheques; the complainant through his clever move has also befooled and baffled, the learned Magistrate by placing the tainted notes in the drawer of the office table of the petitioner, so as to create fabricated evidence against him; the petitioner has a blotless carrier and is respected in his department as an honest officer; the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt so he may be released on bail.
6. On the other hand, the learned D.P.G assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner had received bribe from the complainant and made it a habit to vex him and others, so as to receive kickbacks from them on each and every delivery of the cheque; the learned Magistrate is an independent person who had no heart burning or bias against the petitioner and a successful raid had been conducted by him in accordance with law; the tainted amount, bearing the initials of the learned Magistrate, was recovered by him from the drawer of the office table of the petitioner which is the substantive evidence to establish the dishonest disposition of the petitioner; the prosecution case brims with direct believable evidence. against the petitioner so he may not be allowed the relief prayed for.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The allegation against the petitioner is simple and plain. He compelled the complainant, a labourer in a factory to pay him the illegal gratification of Rs, 2000/- per head, for release/issuance of the cheque of talent scholarship of his children. Prior to it, he is alleged to have already received Rs, 1000/- per head from the complainant, at the time of processing the applications, moved by the petitioner for availing the above-said facility. The complainant however, succeeded in obtaining the cheque from the petitioner on 24.9.2010 without payment of bribe to the petitioner who does not appear to have given up as he persuaded the complainant to pay him the above- said amount. The petitioner is a Government employee who had been assigned the official duty to deliver the cheques of talent scholarship to the deserving students but he used his authority as a tool to fleece money from the poor worker/laborers. I do not find any circumstance which could show the malice or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant who being a poor man could afford to commit a mischief against a person of authority, as the petitioner in the instant case is.
The report prepared by the learned 'Magistrate, who is not inimical towards the petitioner, reveals that he had conducted raid alongwith other members of the raiding party on receipt of a signal and recovered the tainted amount from the drawer of the office table of the petitioner which cannot be over-looked, easily. The version adopted by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate at the time of raid is preposterous. Had an exchange of hot words taken place between the petitioner and the complainant on the question of bringing the adhesive stamps a few days earlier, he must not have shared "Biryani" with him, immediately before the raid was conducted. He must have offered food to the complainant as a matter of impulsive generosity after having received the bribe from him. He has not been able to offer any plausible explanation as to the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the drawer of his office table and the explanation offered by him, ,to have gone to the wash room, does not appeal to common prudence.
9. The corruption is on the rampant in the society and it has eroded amok every discipline of life.
There does not appear to be an end to it and the rivalry in worldly increase has distracted every corrupt government official who wishes to become a billionaire overnight. The conscience, the sense of duty, the honesty and nobility appear to have run down the drain. The element of corruption if not further checked, shall eat up all what is left behind and the day is not far when it will, become impossible to shove the giant of corruption, back in the bottle.
10. I hardly find any weakness or feebleness in the proceedings of the raid conducted by the learned Magistrate as he observed all the requirements of law to do the same and the recovery of the tainted money from the drawer of the table, under the exclusive use and control of the petitioner, has left the petitioner un-responsive. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner require deeper appreciation of the evidence which under the law, is not permissible, as a tentative assessm ent of the incriminating evidence against the accused has to be made under Section 497 Cr.P.C, so as to determine the question of grant or refusal of bail to the accused.
11.This is high time to check the menace of ever increasing corruption, drastically and no undue leniency should be shown to such a character who on the one hand does not respect the law of the land and on the other hand defies the ordains of Allah Almighty. Prima facie there are no reasons to believe that the petitioner has not committed a non-bailable offence.
12.The upshot of the above discussion is that I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. The instant petition stands dismissed.