' The petitioner in this petition for criminal revision is facing trial on a charge under section 156(1)
(77 and 89) of the Customs Act. He has prayed 'that the proceedings against him be quashed.
2. .The relevant facts are as follows: It is alleged by the prosecution that .on 21-1-1980 the petitioner who is employed with a customs clearing agency approached Inspector Abdul Kabir of the Customs Department for the return of four already used baggage declaration forms so that they could be again used for obtaining customs clearance in respect of other goods. He offered to pay some money to the said Inspector for his assistance. Inspector Abdul Kabir reported the matter to Mr. Abdul Wadood Khan Assistant Collector. The two officers decided to lay a trap. Accordingly four already used baggage declaration forms were supplied to the petitioner. On the basis of these forms the petitioner was allowed to clear two air-conditioners and two refrigeratoRs, As he was carrying these goods on a pick-up he was held up and a case was registered against him.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no case has been made out against him. It is argued that if Mr. Abdul Wadood and Inspector Abdul Kabir had refused to oblige him by supplying him with already used baggage declaration forms no offence could have been committed. It is also urged that it was no part of the functions of the public officer to supply an intending violator of law with the means of violating the law; thus, had Inspector Abdul Kabir rebuffed him instead of encouraging the petitioner when he allegedly asked for the supply of the already used baggage declaration forms no offence could have been committed. In support of this contention the learned counsel has relied upon a number of judgments from the Indian jurisdiction. See In re: M.S. Mohiddin AIR 1952 Mad. 561, Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindh Pra AIR 1954 SC 322, In re: R.G.
Jacob AIR 1961 Mad. 482, Ramjanam Singh v. The State of Bihar AIR 1956 SC 643, Lakshminarayana Aiyar AIR 1918 Mad. 738 and The State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh AIR 1958 SC
500. In these authorities it was laid down that the aim of the public authorities should be to prevent crime from being committed and that they ought not to provide opportunities to a would-be offender to perpetrate a crime which could not be committed without their assistance.
4. It is to be noticed that the trial is still at the preliminary stage and as yet no evidence whatsoever has been recorded. I would be, therefore, most reluctant to interfere in the matter unless all the facts A have been brought on the record. Accordingly I decline to interfere with the trial at this stage. After all the evidence has been recorded it will be open to the petitioner either to approach the trial Court or again file a petition in this Court for appropriate relief. With these observations this petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
1989 MLD 1287 [Lahore] Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J BASHIR AHMAD--Appellant versus THE STATE--Respondent Criminal Appeal No, 197 of 1977, heard on 31st October, 1984.
Prevention of Corruption Act (H of 1947)-- ---S. 5(2)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161--Illegal gratification- Raiding-Magistrate and Police Inspector neither seeing passing on of tainted money to accused nor hearing any conversation-- Tainted currency notes recovered from accused who had been acquitted--Prosecution not producing person on whose pointation money was recovered from co-accused--Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances. [p. 1288] A Ch. Sadiq Hussain for Appellant. C.M.
Latif for the State.
Date of hearing: 31st October, 1984.
' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi, whereby he on 17-2-1977 convicted Bashir Ahmad appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 3 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs,100 in default thereof to further R.I. for one month.
2. The appellant was a Patwari. He was tried along with Muhammad Younas who has been acquitted by the trial Court. The charge against them was that they demanded and then accepted Rs, 20 as illegal gratification from Bahawal, P.W.1. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Bahawal P.W. 1 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from him. Muhammad Tufail Inspector, Anti-Corruption, P.W. 5 and Hameed Ullah, Magistrate, P.W. 6 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is not of much importance.
4. When examined under section 342 Cr. P.C., the appellant denied the incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced no witness.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts; that the money was not recovered from the appellant and that the Magistrate had neither seen the transaction nor heard any conversation between the complainant and the appellant. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the Magistrate and the Inspector neither saw the tainted currency notes passing on to the appellant nor did they hear any conversation; that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the appellant; that the tainted currency notes were recovered from Muhammad Younas co- accused who has already been acquitted and that the person on whose pointation the money was recovered from the person of the co-accused, has not been produced by the prosecution. For all these reasons I am convinced that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.