1. Appellant Qurban A.I was sent up for trial by Police Station A.C.E, Sialkot, for offences under section 161, P.P.C. And section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Gujranwala at Lahore, by his judgment dated 31-10-1987 convicted and sentenced him to one year R.I. And fine of Rs.5,000 or in default further R.I. For three months for offence under section 161, P.P.C. And section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. The prosecution story in brief as disclosed by complainant Liaquat A.I is that he was removed from service of Town Committee Qila Sobah Singh in 1981. He had challenged his removal from service in writ petition. Said Liaquat A.I approached Qurban A.I accused, Secretary of the said Town Committe, who asked for Rs.5,000 as illegal gratification in order to help him. Ultimately, the bargain was struck at Rs.2,300. Qurban A.I was paid Rs.1,000 and the remaining amount was to be paid later. Since he did not wash to pay the amount therefore he reported the matter to the police and got FIR PW.1/1 recorded on 23-12-1981. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, PW-5 made an application with a request that some Magistrate may be deputed to supervise the raid.
2. Mr. Muhammad Ashiq Butt, Magistrate, was nominated. He recorded the statement Exh. PW 1/2 of Liaquat A.I. He noted the numbers of the currency notes and gave them back to the complainant.
3. He accompanied the raiding party to the office of the accused where Liaquat A.I alone was sent inside. After sometime both of them came out and went towards the Railway Station where currency notes, were handed over to Qurban A.I. Thereafter they started back towards the office of the appellant. Muhammad Aslam, Inspector Anti---Corruption, went towards the appellant and on seeing him the appellant threw the currency notes which were picked up from the ground and on comparison their numbers were found to be the same which had been noted earlier. The currency notes P.1 to P.13 were secured vide Exh. PW.I /4 and subsequently statement of Liaquat A.I complainant was recorded. The appellant refused to make a statement before the raiding Magistrate which fact was recorded by him vide Exh. PW.4/4. Thereafter the appellant was taken into custody and after usual investigation challan was submitted in Court.
2. The prosecution in support of its case, produced five P.Ws in all. Liaqat A.I PW-1 was the complainant in the case and he gave a detailed account of the occurrence. He proved the FIR as well as the raid proceedings. Muhammad Tufail PW2, SI, after investigation submitted the challan.
4. Syed Zulfiqar A.I Shah, PW-3, verified the investigation of this case. Muhammad Ashiq PW-4 was working as Duty Magistrate during the relevant period. He was deputed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Genl.) Sialkot, to supervise the raid which he accordingly did. He recorded the statement Exh. PW.1/2 of the complainant as well as noted the numbers of the currency notes P.1 to P.13. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, PW-5 was posted as Inspector/Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption, Sialkot on 23-12-1981. He recorded the statement of the complainant. EXh.P.W.l/1 and then gave application Exh. PW.1/1 with a request that some Magistrate may be deputed to supervise the raid.
5. He had accompanied the raiding party and within his view the appellant received Rs.1,300 from the complainant. He had arrested the appellant and investigated the case.
6. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. Without oath wherein he denied the entire prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence.
7. He, however, accepted that he was arrested by the raiding party but denied having received Rs.1,300 as illegal gratification. He also stated that he would make detailed statement on oath.
3. The appellant also produced ten witnesses in his defence. Muhammad Zafar DW-1 stated that he was Assistant Station Master, Railway Station, Qila Sobah Singh on 23-12-1981. On the said date, at about 2.30 p.m. He saw Muhammad Ashiq Butt, Magistrate standing near his residence. He met the said Magistrate who informed that he had come there in connection with a raid. ,Within his view the Magistrate received a signal and left. He followed the Magistrate and saw that the raiding party had apprehended the appellant and the Magistrate was holding money but he could not see from where he got the same. Niamat Ullah DW-2 stated that in the year 1981 there were two groups in Qila Sobah Singh. One group was headed by Yousaf Bhatti, Chairman, and the other by Ch. Fazal Dar. Liaquat A.I complainant belonged to the group of Ch. Fazal Dar. A couple of days before the raid he had seen said Fazal Dar and the complainant sitting in the office of Anti-Corruption Establishment. Samoil DW-3 was travelling in a train on 23-12-1981 which came to Qila Sobah Singh where he saw the appellant being taken away by the police. Muhammad Siddique DW-4 was working as Tax Clerk, Town Committee, Qila Sobah Singh on 23-12-1981. On the said day Qurban A.I appellant asked him to look after his work as he was going to the Railway Station in order to meet a relative who was coming from Sialkot. After sometime he learnt that the appellant was involved in some anti--corruption case. He, however, was not aware of any party faction in the Town Committee. Salamat A.I DW-5 stated that on 23-12-81 he met the appellant at the Railway Station, Qila Sobah Singh. Ghulam Rasool, Chief Officer, DW-6 stated that Liaquat A.I PW was dismissed from service by the then Chairman. Mehboob A.I, Secretary Town Committee, DW-7 was asked to produce some record but the same was not available in the office. Muhammad Yousaf Bhatti, DW- 8, stated that he was elected Chairman of the Town Committee, Qila Sobah Singh. He had dismissed Liaquat A.I PW from service. He further stated that Qurban A.I appellant was deputed by him to pursue the writ petition filed by complainant. Ch. Abbas Hussain, DW-9 was Secretary Town Committee, Chawinda, District Sialkot in 1981. He stated that he was appointed as an inquiry officer in respect of an inquiry against Liaquat A.I, PW. Mirza Muhammad Riaz DW-10 stated that Liaquat A.I PW was dismissed from service. He (Liaquat A.I) had riled a writ petition challenging his removal and disclosed to him that he would involve the appellant in Anti-Corruption cases so that he would not be in a position to pursue the writ petition. He further stated that he had accompanied Liaquat A.I PW along with the raiding party and within his view Liaquat A.I PW dropped some currency notes and raised alarm whereupon the raiding party apprehended the appellant.
8. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against him. Submits that the defence evidence produced by the appellant is more convincing than the prosecution evidence. It is argued that the sanction order dated 5-3-1983 is bad in law because it was to be ordered by Chairman Anti-Corruption Committe No.III, Sialkot, but has been signed by Chairman, Anti-Corruption Committee No .3, Lahore. Contends that since the sanction for prosecution was not granted by the competent authority therefore, the subsequent proceedings are also bad in law. Submits that the raiding party did not hear the conversation between the appellant and the witness, therefore, it has not been conclusively proved that the appellant received illegal gratification. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the evidence with their assistance. The prosecution has produced five witnessed in all. Liaquat A.I, PW-1 has given a detailed account of the occurrence. He has also proved his statement made earlier before the raiding Magistrate. He was cross-examined at length but A the defence has not been able to bring on record anything which could shake his credibility. As a matter of fact, in cross-examination this witness was suggested that when the appellant was counting money a train came on the platform. This would indicate that the defence had accepted the place where the money changed hands.
9. Mr. Muhammad Ashiq Butt, Duty Magistrate has corroborated the statement of Liaquat A.I, PW on all material aspects. He has further started that he saw the appellant receiving the tainted currency notes. He further stated that on seeing the raiding party the appellant threw away the currency notes and tried to run away but was overpowered. The currency notes were picked up from the platform and on comparison, the numbers tallied with those which had been rioted by the Magistrate before the raid. This witness was also cross-examined at length but the defence has not even suggested any motive for the false involvement nor the presence of the Magistrate has been questioned. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, DSP corroborated Liaquat A.I and the Magistrate in all respects. He was also cross-examined at length. He admitted that he saw the appellant receiving the money and then started towards his office. On seeing the raiding party he threw the money and tried to run away but was overpowered.
10. The prosecution evidence is consistent that the appellant received illegal gratification at the platform. The place of occurrence has not been challenged by the defence at all. As a matter of fact, the case of the appellant was that he had gone to the platform in order to receive his relative where the money was planted on him. This defence version, on the face of it, is not worth reliance.
11. There is nothing on the record to indicate how the prosecution witnesses came to know that at the relevant time the appellant would be at the platform instead of in his office. The prosecution evidence does inspire confidence especially when there is nothing on the record to indicate that the Magistrate and the Inspector had either any motive or ill-will against the appellant to implicate him falsely. They saw the money changing hands. If the appellant was innocent there was no occasion for him to throw away the money and start running on seeing the raiding party.
12. The defence produced by the appellant is not worth reliance. None of the defence witnesses has said anything with regard to the receiving of illegal gratification. A perusal of the defence evidence indicates that they only tried to prove that there was a party faction in the Town Committee, which resulted in the involvement of the appellant. None of the defence witnesses has said a word F about the occurrence or the witnesses who were members of the raiding party. In these circumstances, I hold that the defence evidence produced by the appellant is of no use to him.
13. The contention of the learned counsel was that the sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Chairman, Anti-Corruption Committee No.3, Lahore whereas the same should have been given by the Chairman, Anti-Corruption Committee No.3, Sialkot. I have gone through the entire sanction order and it is clear that it is a clerical error where instead of Sialkot the word Lahore has been typed. In the sanction order itself throughout the Chairman Anti-Corruption Committee No.3, Sialkot has been typed. Word 'Lahore' instead of 'Sialkot' appears only once and that also not in the sanction order but under the signatures of the Sanctioning Authority.
14. For what has been discussed above, I hold that the prosecution witnesses are reliable and have been able to prove the prosecution case beyond doubt and can safely be relied upon. Therefore, the appeal fails which is accordingly, dismissed.
15. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve the remaining period of his sentence.
16. M.Y.H./Q-23/L