' Mahmood Ahmad, son of Ghulam Sarwar, Rajput Khokhar by caste, aged 45 years, resident of Bbureke Kalan, Tahsil Daska, District Sialkot, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore, dated the 13th October, 1979 whereby he was convicted of the commission of offence punishable under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs, 2,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant, who was the then District Officer, House Building Finance Corporation, Sialkot, was accused of accepting Rs, 500 as illegal gratification on the 6th March, 1976 from one Ashiq Hussain for allegedly issuing to the latter's father, Muhammad Khan, P. W.
1. Cheque of Rs, 7,000 relating to the last instalment of the loan that he had taken for building the house. According to the prosecution version of the case Ashiq Hussain, in the company of his friend. Muhammad Akram, P. W. 2, passed illegal gratification to the appellant in his office while Rafique Ahmad, Magistrate. P. W. 5, Manzoor Hussain, Sub-Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption, Sialkot, P.
W. 6, and Safdar Ali constable watched the scene through glass panes. The appellant is reported to have put the tainted money in the right pocket of his coat from where it was recovered soon thereafter by Rafique Ahmad, Magistrate.
2. The appellant denied acceptance of bribe of Rs, 500 from Ashiq Hussain. .He explained that he had a quarrel with the complainant against whose family he had received complaints that they had applied for three loans against one and the same house and it was out of grudge that the complainant had tried to plant the case upon him.
3. Ashiq Hussain was not produced by the prosecution as he was stated to be out of country.
Muhammad Akram, P. W. 2, did no4 support the prosecution case rather he deposed in favour of the appellant. He said that there had been no talk of money between the complainant A and the appellant and that the complainant had put Rs, 500 in the appellant's coat which had been hanging by the almirab when the appellant had been taking a cheque out of the almirah. He explained that when the complainant had put money in the pocket of the appellant the latter had not seen it.
4. Admittedly Refique Ahmed, Magistrate, P. W. 5, and Manzoo Hussain, Sub-Circle Officer, P. W.
6. Did not hear any word exchanged between the complainant and the appellant. It is apparent from a look at the site plan, Exh. D. 1, and the statement of Muhammad Akram, P. W.
2. That Rafique Ahmad and Manzoor Hussain standing outside the office room of the appellant could not have actually seen the appellant in his chair. The learned Special Judge, as the perusal of his judgment indicates, was in doubt and was not sure whether the appellant accepted the illegal gratification as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel appearing for the State candidly conceded that in view of the evidence brought on the record the learned Special Judge ought to have acquitted the appellant. The evidence produced by the prosecution does not make out a case for acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant. The appeal is accordingly accepted, the conviction of the appellant and the sentence awarded to him by the learned Special Judge are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail. He is discharged of the obligations attending to the bail bond executed by him.