' This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, whereby he on 11-4-1979 convicted Saif Ullah appellant under section 165-A, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one year R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000/-, in default thereof further R.I. For 3 months.
2. The appellant is a private person. The charge against him was that he offered Rs,600/- as illegal gratification to Muhammad Azam ASI, P.W.4 for the release of Ghulam Muhammad and others. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, prosecution produced 4 witnesses. Muhammad Nawaz P.W.1 had drawn up formal FIR. Muhammad Azam AK P.W.4 appeared to prove that the appellant had offered him Rs,600/- as illegal gratification for the release of Ghulam Muhammad and others. Haji Ghulam Rasul and Umar Hayat were produced as eye-witnesses of the occurrence.
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 he examined 3 witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that Haji Ghulam Rasul and Umar Hayat being under the influence of police, are not reliable. On the other hand, 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 case of raid; that Muhammad Azam ASI, being highly interested in the result of the prosecution is not an independent witness; that Haji Ghulam Rasul and Umar Hayat had also gone to police station in connection A with some cases And as such were under the influence of the police and that in the peculiar circumstances of the case prudence requires independent corroboration of the statements made by Ghulam Rasul,' Umar Hayat and Muhammad Azam P.Ws.
Which is lacking. That being the position, I am of the view that it would not be in accordance with the safe administration of justice to place implicit reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of these witnesses.
7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.