ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 15-9-1981, dismissing the petitioner's appeal in a corruption matter.
2. The facts leading to the present petition, briefly, are that Khair Din petitioner was employed as a Food Inspector in the Food Department, Muhammad Sharif, who was a depot-holder, approached him for getting his periodicalquota of flour and sugar for his depot. But Khair Din petitioner (Food Inspector) instead of asking him for the usual sum of Rs. 50 as illegal gratification demanded Rs.
100 for doing him the favour and also asked for Rs. 50 for the previous month. As Muhammad Sharif (complainant) did not wish to pay this increased amount he contacted Muhammad Akbar Bhatti, Circle Officer A.. C. E. (P. W. 3) and reported the matter to him. The latter recorded his statement Exh.
PM, which was signed by the complainant. He then made an application to the Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhupura to nominate a Magistrate for conducting the raid. The Assistant Commissioner nominated Mr. Babar Khan M. I. C., Sheikhupura, for the purpose. The complainant was then produced before the said Magistrate who also recorded his statement (Exh. P. B.) which was also signed by him. Muhammad Sharif produced two currency notes (P. 1 and P. 2), numbers whereof were noted down by the Magistrate and returned to Muhammad Sharif for banding over to the petitioner. The raiding party consisting of the said Magistrate, Muhammad Akbar, Sub Inspector, A. C. E., and Muhammad Jamil, Constable, then accompanied Muhammad Sharif complai--nant to the office of the Assistant Food Controller, where the petitioner was working.
Muhammad Sharif complainant went inside the room and contacted the petitioner while the Magistrate and the Police Officers stood outside, near the door. Muhammad Sharif complainant then handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused/petitioner saying that it was the bribe demanded by him for the last month as well as the current month. Khair Din, petitioner took the currency notes and put them in the front pocket of his shirt. The aforementioned conversation was beard by the Magistrate and the Police Circle Inspector, who also saw the passing of the money to the petitioner. Immediately, thereafter, they entered the room. The Magistrate introduced himself and took out the tainted currency notes from the pocket of the petitioner's shirt. He also recovered another Rs. 100 worth of currency notes and 3 documents from his pocket. The Magistrate prepared the recovery memo. And also recorded the statement (Exh. PK) of the accused and the supplementary statement (Exh. P. 4) of the complai--nant. He then handed over the case to the Investigating Officer.
3. At the trial the prosecution relied on the testimony of Mr. Babar Khan, M. I. C. (P. W. 1), Muhammad Sharif complainant (P. W. 2) Muhammad Akbar Bhatti, Inspector A. C. E. (P. W. 3) and Muhammad Aziz, a retired A. F. C. (P. W. 4). All the witnesses except Muhammad Sharif complainant, supported the prosecution case. Muhammad Sharif P. W. 2 (Complainant), however, resiled from his earlier statement and tried to help the accused/ petitioner and stated that he bad not made any complainant against him on 25-10-1978. He stated further that he had given Rs. 150 to the accused petitioner (on the day of occurrence) as a loan and it was one Younis who had got the raid conducted against the petitioner through a Magistrat during which the said money was recovered.
He was declared hostil and was cross-examined by the P. P. He denied having made statement Exh. P. M. And P. B. Before the Police Inspector and Magistrate respectively. He had admitted his signatures on the statement Exh. P. B. Recorded by the Magistrate but could not explain how his signatures happened to be affixed thereon. Later, at the end .Of his cross-examination, he made an improve--ment and stated that the petitioner had taken Rs. 150 as loan from on Younis and that it was that money that he had returned to the petition on behalf of Younis.
The accused denied his guilt and stated that the case had been framed by one Ibrahim through his son Younis as he had - ordered an inquiry against Ibrahim as a result of which he was fined Rs.
200. He also denied receiving the tainted money or its recovery from him. In support of his defence he produced three witnesses, namely, Ashfaq Hussain (D. W. 1) a clerk in the D. F. C., office and Ahmad Din (D. W. 2) and Bashir Ahmad (D. W. 3), two Chowkidars of the Food Department.
The trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted the accused under section 161, P. P.
C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, sentenced him to one year R.
1. And a .Fine of Rs. 500, or in default to R. I. For 3 months.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court which partly accepted his appeal inasmuch as it maintained his conviction but reduced the sentence to that already undergone by him and increased the fine to Rs. 2,000 or 6 months' R.
1. In default thereof. Not being satisfied, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only contention raised by him is that the learned Courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence. We have, therefore, gone through the entire evidence on the record with his help. As already mentioned above the raiding Magis--trate as well as the Police Officers have fully supported the prosecution version with regard to the making of the complaint by Muhammad Sharif (P. W. 2 passing of the tainted currency notes by Muhammad Sharif to the accused-- petitioner; placing of the same by the petitioner in his pocket and the subsequent recovery of the tainted currency notes by the raiding Magistrates from petitioner's pocket. The accused/petitioner, of course, denied his guilt at the trial, as mentioned earlier, but it is noteworthy that in his statement (Exh. P. K.) made by him before the raiding Magistrate immediately after the occurrence the petitioner had stated that on the day of occurrence Muhammad Sharif complainant had come to his office and suddenly put the currency notes worth Rs. 150 (P. 1 and P. 2) in his pocket. He (l. e. The petitioner) tried to return these notes to him saying "why,. Are you giving me the notes". Muhammad Sharif complainant, however thrust the currency notes in his pocket and it was at that juncture that raiding party came in. It is noteworthy that in the said statement the petitioner admitted that the raiding Magistrate had searched his pocket and brought out the tainted currency notes therefrom, which took into possession after tallying the numbers with those already noted by him.
We have also gone through the testimony of the D. W. 1 who was employed as a Depot Clerk in the office of D. F. C. Stated that on application submitted by Muhammad Din, Muhammad Sarwar and some others an inquiry was held against one Ibrahim Depot-Holder, as a result of which he was fined Rs. 200 and that Younis was the son of the aforesaid Ibrahim. This witness, has however admitted during the cross-examination that he had not appeared before the police during the Investigation. Even in his statement during the trial he has not stated that Khair Din petitioner was in any way responsible for the inquiry against Ibrahim. His statement, therefore, does not help the petitioner. The other two defence witnesses, namely Ahmad Din (D. W. 2) and Bashir Ahmad (D. W.
3) are chowkidars in the Food Depart--ment. Ahmad Din (D. W. 2) has stated that on the day of the occurrence he was present in the petitioner's room when Muhammad Sharif (complainant) tried to give him Rs.
150. He stated further that during the search only Rs. 100 were recovered from the petitioner's pocket, while Rs. 150 were recovered lying on his table. He admitted :that he had not made any statement before the Magistrate at that time. Bashir Ahmad (D. W. 3) had also stated that he was present in petitioner's room at the relevant time but the version given by him is that both Muhammad Sharif (complai--nant) and Younis had tried to give the money to the petitioner which he refused to accept. But he stated further that thereafter the Magistrate came in and he as well as Ahmad Din (D. W. 2) were turned out of the room. He admitted that be had not appeared before the Police to give this version during the investigation. Having fully considered the evidence on the record, we are of the view that the statements of the D. Ws. Do not inspire confidence and are of no worth, while the statements of Mr. Babar Khan, M. I. C. Who is a disinterested witness can be safely relied upon. Nothing has been brought out during his cross-examination to discredit his testimony; which is fully supported by that of the Circle Inspector (P. W. 3). No doubt Muhammad Sharif complainant resiled from his statement but there is sufficient material on the record including the statement of raiding Magistrate and the Circle Inspector who had not only seen the tainted currency notes being passed by the complainant to the petitioner but also heard the conversation between them to hold that the case against the petitioner stood proved.
This petition has no merit and is dismissed.
6. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that after making a complaint against the petitioner and moving the machinery of law against him, Muhammad Sharif complainant (P. W. 2) has, prima facie, perjured himself at the. Trial in order to help the accused/petitioner and brazenly denied his statements made before the Police Inspector and the Magistrate. The fact that such persons are hardly ever proceeded against A, for perjury has given rise to an impression in the general public that any one can make a false statement in a Court of law with impunity. The' feeling is not only justified but has the effect of undermining public confidence in the judicial process. We are, therefore, of the view that this is fit case in which the trial Court should consider the propriety of prosecution Muhammad Sharif complainant for perjury. A copy of this judgment should be sent to the learned trial Court for appropriate action.