' The correctness and the legality of the judgment, dated 12-12-1988 pronounced by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur, has been questioned in this appeal, who had convicted the appellant under section 161 of the P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and was ordered to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs,1,000. In default of the payment of this fine, he was directed to suffer three months' R.I. More.
2. The facts, which led to the detection of this crime, in substance, are that Muhammad Sadiq, the appellant, was employed as Office Superintendent in Government Transport Service, Bahawalpur.
Muhammad Masood was a Ticket Examiner, who had gone on two years medical leave and then resumed duty on 10-8-1982. He was sent to report to the Headquarters and was subsequently posted at Bahawalpur. He resumed duty on 20-9-1982. Muhammad Masood, the complainant, wanted to perform route duty and he contracted Muhammad Sadiq, the appellant, for this purpose, who demanded Rs,200 as bribe for getting him transferred. On 23-9-1982, the complainant advanced Rs,100 as bribe to the appellant. When he was to pay Rs,100 the balance of the bribe money, Muhammad Masood informed the Anti-Corruption Agency and lodged the report Exh.P.W.1/A. A raiding party was organized and the statement of Muhammad Masood complainant Exh.P.W.1/B was recorded and the number of the currency note of the denomination of Rs,100 was noted. The raid was conducted. The complainant knocked at the door of the complainant and within the view of the Magistrate and the Anti-Corruption Inspector, the complainant gave Rs,100 to the appellant, who put it in his pocket. When the raiding party introduced themselves to the appellant then he is stated to have thrown the tainted currency note on the ground. He was arrested and his challan was submitted. He pleaded not guilty. As a sequel to the impugned trial, he was awarded the afore-mentioned punishment.
3. Muhammad Masood, the complainant, figured in the witness-box as P.W.1 and has narrated the incident as stated above. He has explained that he had given a currency note of Rs,100 to the appellant and he had put it in his pocket and threw it on the ground which was taken into possession by the raiding Magistrate. He has stated that the raiding party was standing at a distance of five yards when he paid the tainted money to the appellant and a bulb was on, on the head of the appellant at that time. He has conceded the fact that his case of absence was enquired into by the officers and the appellant had appeared as a witness against him. Nobody was present when he paid Rs,100 to the appellant before this raid.
4. Ch. Rehmatullah, Inspector Police, who was posted as Sub-Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Bahawalpur, on 26-10-1982, had recorded the statement of Muhammad Masood Exh.P.W.1/A which was read over to him. Rehmat Ullah, who accompanied the raiding party, has stated that he was standing at a distance of 10 to 15 yards from the complainant and the accused.
He has doubled this distance as compared to the distance deposed by the complainant. He has denied the fact that he had approached the appellant so that he may lend assistance to the complainant in the inquiries which were being conducted by the department.
5. Mr. Aftab All Khan, Magistrate, 1st Class, who was the head of the raiding party, appeared as P.W.3 and has narrated the fact how the complainant had given Rs,100 to the appellant and how did he throw the same on the ground and it was picked up from the ground. He had recorded his raiding report Exh.P.A. He has stated that he had recorded the proceedings in the light of Jeep, although some shops were situated nearby where the electric light was on. He did not hear the conversation, which took place between the complainant and the appellant at the time of passing of money. He was at a distance of 30 to 40 feet from the accused when the money was given to him.
6. Muhammad Luqman, Moharrir Head Constable P.W.4, was also with the raiding party. He has stated that the Magistrate had recorded the proceedings while sitting in the wagon. He has contradicted Mr. Aftab All Khan, Magistrate 1st Class, on this point.
7. The appellant denied all the facts in his statement recorded under section 342, of the Cr.P.C. He has explained that the complainant was against him as he had thought that he was instrumental in the termination of his services. He was, therefore, entangled by him illegally. He has examined Nasrullah Khan, Senior Ticket Examiner as D.W.1, who has stated that the posting on the complainant was controlled by him which was approved by the Assistant Traffic Manager and finally by District Manager and the Office Superintendent had nothing to do with the posting on the route duty of the Ticket Examiner.
8. Abdul Aziz, Officiating Office Superintendent D.W.2 has testified that the complainant was involved in not less than five departmental cases of fraud. Rehmat Ali, Accountant, D.W.3 had brought the original record of the fraud committed by the complainant.
9. According to the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, Road Transport Corporation was established under section 70 of the said Ordinance. It was then made a Road Trasnport Board.
Under section 70, it is a corporate body having perpetual succession and a common seal and can sue and be sued in its own name. It was not controlled by the Government and it is doubtful that the appellant comes within definition of public servant as envisaged under section 21 of the P.P.C.
Further the appellant had appeared against the appellant in his inquiry and it was not expected of the complainant to have faith in the appellant so as to get himself posted on route duty. Nasrullah Khan D.W.1 has specifically stated that the appellant was not concerned with the posting of the complainant and, in this manner, the false involvement of the appellant in this case was not improbable. It may also be noted that the complainant willingly gave advance bribe money then why did he keep silent when he had passed Rs,100 before the conduct of a raid and why did he hesitate in giving the balance of Rs,100 and informed the Anti-Corruption Department. It was suggested to Rehmant Ullah P.W.2 that he had approached the appellant to show some favour to the complainant in his inquiries. Although this suggestion has been denied yet it appears to be reasonably true.
10. The cardinal fact that nobody heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant when the tainted money was passed is very significant. The complainant might have coined some excuse to give that money to the appellant which he had thrown away. Since it was picked up from the ground so the case against the appellant is not made out.
11. In the light of the above observations, I accept this appeal and honorably acquit the appellant in this case. He was released on bail. He stands discharged of his bail bond.