This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Senior Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, whereby he on 2-12-1581 convicted Abdul Majid appellant under section 161 read with section 165-A, P.P.C. And sentenced him to one years' R.I.
2. The appellant is a private person. The facts leading to his prosecution, briefly, are that on 5-1-1981 at about 7-00 p.m., he approached Bashir Ahmad S.I., P.W.1 in Police Station Manga Mandi, Abdul Ghafoor A.S.I., P.W.2 and Muhammad Siddiq, Head Constable, P.W.3 were already present there. The appellant produced one pistol, 2 live cartridges before the S.I. And also offered him Rs.400 for planting pistol and cartridges on Zahoor Khan P.W.1 because the latter had not paid Rs.2,000 which he had to pay to the appellant. The Sub-Inspector refused to accept the illegal gratification. He arrested the appellant. The F.I.R. Exh.P.W.1/A was registered against the appellant. The currency notes of Rs.400 were taken into possession vide memo. Copy whereof is Exh.P.W.1/B. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution produced Bashir Ahmad, S.I., P.W.1, Abdul Ghafoor, A.S.I., P.W.2 and Muhammad Siddiq, Head Constable P.W.3. They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication. In defence 3 witnesses were produced.
Zahoor Ahmad Khan who originally was a prosecution witness but was not examined by the prosecution, appeared as D.W.1. He stated that he had no dealings with the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case and that there is no independent witness of the occurrence. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has 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 it is not a raid case; that the 3 police officials have been produced to prove the allegations and that, in the circumstances of the case, the rule of prudence certainly requires independent corroboration of the statements made by the three police officials. I feel that it is very easy to concoct such a case by the police officials and it may be very difficult to rebut the same. For all these reasons, I am of the view that it would be highly unsafe to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the three police officials without any independent corroboration which I do not see in the case in hand.
7. For what has been said above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.