' Au NAWAZ BUDHANI, J.-This is an Acquittal Appeal against the Judgment and an Order passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Karachi, dated 29th January, 1983. The facts briefly are that complainant Rashid Ahmad Tailor Master was given by way of a gift one Flat No, E-6, Arjun Nawaz Building Ram Sawami, by his father. In this connection he went to the office of the Sub-Registrar on 19th May, 1982 to get the certified copy of the Gift Deed. The application he gave to the Registrar was endorsed by the Registrar and was sent to the Clerk one Najibul Hassan. Najibul Hassan demanded Rs,
100. He had no money and hence he promised that he would come back to make the payment. On the same day he lodged an F. I. R. With Anti-Corruption Police. Inspector Amanullah conducted the proceedings and arranged a trap. The tainted money Rs, 100 was given by the complainant in presence of Magistrate and in presence of one witness. The tainted money was alleged to have been paid to the accused Najibul Hassan in presence of the witness Abdul Aziz. Abdul Aziz went to inform the Magistrate and the Investigating Officer who were standing outside the office of the Sub-Registrar. It is further alleged that the tainted amount was secured from the pocket of Bushirt of the accused Najibul Hassan.
2. The accused/respondent in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Denied all these facts. The appeal was argued by Mr. Mustafa Advocate for the State and Mr. Syed Saeed Hassan Advocate argued the case for the respondent. The learned trial Court had entertained a valid doubt whether the operation of trap was actually finalised and that tainted money was secured from the accused Najibul Hassan the clerk of the Sub-Registrar. It is the Sub-Registrar who grants copies of the Gift Deeds and Receipt Book is signed by him. In this case we find no receipt book signed by the Sub- Registrar. TheSub-Registrar in his evidence at Exh. 10 states that no money was secured from the possession of the accused. He only learnt that tainted amount was secured from the possession of the respondent. The trial Court has further pointed out the discrepancies namely that in the F. I. R.
The name of respondent was not given but his description or Hulia was given as of a clerk. No two persons are alike but the description given by the complainant is likely to mislead the Investigating Agency to involve a wrong person altogether. This is the main point where the trial Court has doubted the operation of the trap. The papers relating to the Gift Deed namely a true copy of it, was secured from the Almirah/Cupboard of the accused. This copy was not given to the complainant on payment of money. The trap, therefore, became ineffective inasmuch as the copy of the Gift Deed was not given to the complainant after the so-called payment of the money. This is another discrepancy which makes the case of Anti-Corruption Police doubtful. The mashir Abdul Aziz belongs to Bashdadi or Chokiwara at a considerable distance from the City Court and it is presumed that he is a stock mashir of the A Anti-Corruption Police. Another discrepancy is that Magistrate came to the office of Anti-Corruption where the F.
1. R. Was recorded of the complainant in his presence. Whereas the complainant stated that his F. I.
R. Was recorded on 20th May, 1982 before the arrival of any Magistrate to the Office of Anti- Corruption. The trial Court has, therefore, doubted the entire trap to be artificial.
3. We have given our anxious attention to the entire case and have come to the conclusion that there is hardly any case to set aside the Judgment of the lower Court who has given the benefit of doubt to the respondent. The respondent is entitled to the benefit of doubt as decided by the trial Court.
' The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.