Muhammad Rafiq-appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan in case FIR No, 1 registered on 4.1.2000 at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Khanewal, for offence under Section 161, PPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Vide judgment dated 20.5.2002, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 161, PPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs, 20,000/-, in default in payment whereof to suffer further S.I. for six months. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was given to the convict/appellant.
2. Aggrieved by his above noted conviction and sentence, the convict/appellant, has filed the instant appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case per FIR Ex. PA, lodged at the instance of Rana Shafqat Mahmood/complainant. Bureau Chief of Daily Faisalabad Report, Mian Channu, are that Muhammad Rafiq, Patwari/appellant, who, being involved in multiple corruption cases,.was suspended but still was restored on account of his connivance with the officers of canal department. On application of residents of Chak No, 5/8-AR against the appellant, Deputy Collector, Khanewal, was appointed as Inquiry Officer who sent his report to XEN and Chairman, Khidmat Committee and consequently, the appellant was suspended but after a short span of time was again restored and transferred. Neither any action was not taken against him nor was the bribery received by him returned to the affectees. The appellant had received Rs, 8125/- and Rs, 2200/- from the people on the pretext of construction of a new Nakka. As a result of inquiry and investigation, the appellant was found guilty of the offence and was sent up to face the trial.
4. To prove its case at the trial, prosecution produced four witnesses, namely, Allah Ditta/PW-1, Rustam/PW-2, Maqbool Hussain/PW-3 and Razzaq Ahmad, CO/PW-4.
5. In his statement recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded his innocence and false implication in the following words:-- "The complainant owned one square of land in Moraba No, 24 which was under the scheme of horse breeding. The complainant had not cultivated the said land but he had given the said land on lease to other person. The complainant wanted that the girdawari of the said land should be on his name but I refused to do so. I .used to make girdawari of the land on the same person who had actually cultivated the land. Due to this grudge, the complainant got registered this false case against me."
However, he neither appeared as his own witness as contemplated by Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor did he produce any witness in his defence.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is general allegation of taking illegal gratification against the appellant; that no specific place, date, time, month or year of receipt of alleged bribery has either been mentioned in the FIR or in the statements of the witnesses, that no recovery has been effected from the appellant; and that Rana Shafqat Mahmood/complainant has not been produced by the prosecution. On these premises, the learned counsel has urged that the conviction and sentence of the appellant is not warranted. Conversely, the learned DPG appearing on behalf of the State has defended the impugned judgment.
7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it has been noticed that no recovery whatsoever of any incriminating material has been effected from the appellant. There is also nothing on record as to the place, time, date, month or year of receipt of the alleged illegal gratification from the so-called affectee. Allah Ditta/PW-1 admitted in this cross examination that he had not moved any application for the change of Nakka to the XEN Canal. It is also note-worthy that the appellant had allegedly obtained bribe from Allah Ditta for construction of a new Nakka. Rusta/PW-2, in whose presence Allah Ditta paid the alleged bribe to the appellant, is admittedly nephew of Allah Ditta. He also did not specify the place, date, time, month or year of alleged payment. Maqbool Ahmed /PW-3, who allegedly paid Rs, 5000/- and Rs, 2250/- to the appellant, also did not specify the date, time, month year or place of alleged payment. In these circumstances, the case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful and based on presumptions and conjectures, which cannot be made basis for conviction. Thus, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant.
8. Resultantly, this appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of his hail bonds.