1. ' Muhammad Riaz Sahi, Inspector/S.H.O., Factory Area, Lahore along with Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I., Police Station Factory Area, Lahore, was tried by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned trial Court vide its judgment, dated 4-3-1989, found both of them guilty and sentenced each of them to four months' R.I. And a fine of Rs,3,000 each or in default one month's R.I. Each. Muhammad Riaz Sahi appellant has filed an appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. Pervez Akhtar appellant has filed a separate appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. Both the appeals shall be disposed of by this judgment as they arise out of the same F.I.R. And judgment.
2. The prosecution story in brief as disclosed by Rana Muhammad Jamil P.W. Is to the effect that he owned a tea-stall in Model Colony No,2, Walton Road, Lahore. On 12-11-1985, at about evening time, he was not present in the hotel when Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I. Police Station Factory Area, came to his hotel and took into possession a Television and V.C.R. Which were being played there. He also registered a case and arrested Liaqat Ali and Muhammad Younus brothers of the first informant.
2. Rana Muhammad Jamil first informant alongwith Ghulam Ahmad and Muhammad Yousuf went to police station factory area and got in touch with Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I. Who produced them before Muhammad Raiz Sahi, Inspector/S.H.O. He threatened them that they would also be involved in that case. Thereafter, he demanded Rs,5,000 for letting them off. The first informant had only Rs,3,000 with him which were duly paid in the presence of the witnesses to said Muhammad Riaz Sahi, Inspector/S.H.O. And the remaining amount of Rs,2,000 was promised to be paid later on. The first informant asked for the return of the Television and V.C.R. Whereupon the first informant was advised by the said S.H.O. To make an application for Sapurdari of those articles bcfo c a Magistrate and then come to him alongwith the balance amount of Rs,2,000. The first informant obtained the order of Sapurdari from a Magistrate and thereafter appeared before the Assistant Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore, who made an application and also produced Rana Muhammad Jamil before Mr. Muhammad Tariq Bajwa, Magistrate, who recorded the statement of the first informant, Exh.P.W.1/2 and thereafter also noted down the numbers of the currency notes to be passed on to Pcrvez Akhtar, A.S.I. After this, a raiding party was constituted which went to the said police station. The raiding party parked its car at some distance and asked the first informant to bring Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I. To a hotel. Rana Muhammad Jamil, first informant along with Ghulam Rasool P.W. Who was also involved in the case registered by Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I. Went to the police station and brought Pervez Akhtar A.S.I. In the said hotel where he paid him Rs,2,000. Pervez Akhtar A.S.I. Put the money in his pocket. On the signal given by Rana Muhammad Jamil first informant the raiding party came to the spot and recovered Rs,2,000 from Pervez Akhtar A.S.I. As well as an application for Sapurdari of Televis nd V.C.R. The numbers of the tainted currency notes tallied with the one which had been recorded by the Magistrate, therefore, application for Sapurdari and the tainted currency notes were taken into possession, vide memo. Exh.P.W.2/3. The Magistrate again recorded the statement of the first informant as well as of Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I. After the necessary investigation challan against both the accused was submitted in Court.
3. ' The prosecution in support of its case produced nine wintesses in all. P.W.1, Mr. Muhammad Tariq Bajwa, Magistrate First Class stated that Assistant Director/A.C.E. With an Inspector came to his house with the complainant and requested for conducting a raid. He recorded the statement, Exh.P.W.1/2 of the complainant and then accompanied them to Police Station Factory Area. They parked their vehicle near a hotel. He had also noted down the numbers of currency notes of Rs,2,000 which were to be paid to Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I. Rana Muhammad Jamil P.W. Alongwith Ghulam Rasool P.W. Were sent. Rana Muhammad Jamil sat in the hotel called Chargha House, whereas Rana Muhammad Jamil went to the police station and after a while came back with Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I. All of them sat in the said hotel and after a while the complainant gave a signal whereupon the raiding party went to the accused and introduced themselves and secured Rs,2,000 from the pocket of his shirt as well as application for Sapurdari. He tallied the numbers of the currency notes which matched with the list which he had prepared earlier. He recorded the statement Exh.P.W.1/6 wherein he declined to say anything. P.W.2, Rana Muhammad Jamil, had supported the prosecution case in all the details. He stated that he had paid Rs,3,000 to Muhammad Riaz Sahi, 5.1-1.0./Inspector and agreed to pay Rs,2,000 more with the understanding that no action against him would be taken. On the appointed day he informed the authorities who conducted the raid. P.W.3, Ghulam Ahmad, stated that he learnt that his hotel had been raided by the police and T.V. Alongwith V.C.R. Was taken away by them. He went to the police station with Rana Muhammad Jamil and Muhammad Yousuf P.Ws. He with others was produced before Muhammad Riaz Sahi, S.H.O./Inspector, by Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I. The said Inspector threatened them that they would also be proceeded against in the case already registered. On their request he agreed not to take action against them if they paid Rs,5,000. Rana Muhammad Jamil P.W. Had Rs,3,000 with him which he paid to him and the remainng amount was to be paid on the following day.
4. ' Mr. Jang Bahadur Khan, Inspector/C.O.A.C.E., P.W.4, stated that on 14-11-1985, he was C.O.A., C.E. He accompanied the raiding party and arrested Pcrvez Akhtar, A.S.I. From whose possession tainted currency notes of Rs,2,000 were secured. He also took into possession certain documents pertaining to this case. P.W.5, Muhammad Younus, stated that on 12-11-1985, he was present in the hotel of the first informant where film 'Maula Jat' was being played on the V.C.R. Pervez Akhtar, A.S.T., came and took into possession television and V.C.R. As well as the film. He also took Muhammad Younus and his brother Liaqat Ali P.Ws. To the police station. His brother Rana Muhammad Jamil later came to the police station to have them released. He was informed by Rana Muhammad Jamil first informant that he had paid Rs,3,000 to Muhammad Riaz Sahi, S.H.O./Inspector and the remaining amount of Rs,2,000 was to be paid for their release. On the following day he was bailed out. P.W.6, Liaqat Ali, brother of Muhammad Younus has supported the factum of his arrest by Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I., and taking away television and V.C.R. By him. He stated that he was informed by brother of Rana Muhammad Jamil P.W. That he had paid Rs,3,000 and Rs,2,000 were yet to be paid. P.W.7, Muhammad Yousaf, stated that about a year and half back Rana Muhammad Jamil met him and told him that his brother was arrested by Factory Area Police. He accompanied said Rana Muhammad Jamil, P.W.2, to the police station. On the way, Ch. Ghulam Rasool, P.W.8 also met him and accompanied them to the police station they met Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I., who produced them before Muhammad Riaz Sahi, S.H.O./Inspector, who threatened to arrest Rana Muhammad Jamil because he was the owner of the hotel. On their request the said S.H.O./Inspector agreed not to take any action provided they paid Rs,5,000. Rana Muhammad Jamil P.W. Had Rs,3,000 with him which he accordingly paid to him and the remaining Rs,2,000 was promised to be paid on the following day. P.W.8, Ghulam Rasool had supported in detail the statement of Muhammad Yousuf P.W. He had also accompanied them to the Police Station Factory Area. P.W.9, Mr. Shafi-uz-Zaman, was Senior Special Magistrate/Assistant Director, Anti-Corruption, on 14-11-1985. Rana Muhammad Jamil P.W. Appeared before him and lodged report, Exh.P.W.2/1. He gave an application to Mr. Muhammad Tariq Bajwa, Magistrate, P.W.1, requesting for raid. He accompanied the raiding party and secured Rs,2,000 from the possession of Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I. He also investigated the case and took into possession papers relating to case F.I.R. 299/1985 under sections 292 and 293, P.P.C., against the P.Ws. He formally arrested Muhammad Riaz Sahi accused as well.
5. ' At the conlusion of the prosecution evidence, both the accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein they refuted the entire prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. They also produced three defence witnesses. Naseer Ahmed, D.W.1 and Ahmed Jabbar Khan, D.W.2 had stated that they were present in the hotel called Charagha House when Pervez Akhtar A.S.I., came there. After a while, Rana Muhammad Jamil and Ghulam Rasool, P.Ws. Also came there. They offered Rs,2,000 to Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I., but he refused to accept the same. The cash fell down when Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I. Pushed it aside. In the meanwhile, the raiding party came and arrested Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I. D.W.3, Rehmat Ali Constable, produced copy of F.I.R. No,299/85 as well as copy of the Roznamcha pertaining to year 1985 as Exh.D.W.1/1 and Exh.D.W.1/2 and copy of report No,38, dated 12-11-1985 as well as report No,15, dated 13-11-1985. Copy of the F.I.R. Produced by this witness pertained to the registration of case under sections 292 and 293, P.P.C. Against some of the P.Ws.
6. According to the Rapat No,38, dated 12-11-1985, the Inspector had recorded that he was not well, therefore, could not perform official duty. According to Rapat No,15, dated 13-11-1985, the said Inspector Muhammad Riaz Sahi had recorded that he had recovered and was able to perform his duty.
7. ' It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the case against the appellants was highly doubtful. It was argued that there was no occasion for the witnesses to have gone to the police station because the offence under sections 292 and 293, P.P.C. Was bailable and the accused could get bail as a matter of right. Argues that Muhammad Riaz Sahi appellant was admittedly not in the police station at that time when the alleged money was paid to him, therefore, no case against him was made out. Submits that Muhammad Riaz Sahi, appellant, Inspector/S.H.O. Was not even investigating the case, therefore, there was no occasion for the wintesses to pay him the alleged amount.
8. ' It was argued on behalf of Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I., that none of the witnesses saw the appellant demanding illegal gratification or accepting the same. Therefore, the statements of Rana Muhammad Jamil P.W.2 and Ghulam Ahmed P.W.3, who were interested witnesses, could not be relied upon. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
9. I have heard learned counsel and gone through the evidence with their assistance. As far as the first part of the occurrence which took place on 12-11-1985 is concerned, there are the statements of Rana Muhammad Jamil, Ghulam Ahmed and Muhammad Yousuf, P.Ws.2, 3 and 7 respectively.
10. They have given detailed account of the occurrence the way it took place. They were cross- A examined at length but nothing could be brought on the record which could even remotely suggest that they had any ill-will or motive for the false involvement of Muhammad Riaz Sahi, appellant. If at all there could possibly be any motive on the part of the witnesses, it could only be directed against Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I., who conducted the raid and arrested for an offence under sections 292 and 293, P.P.C. The statements of these witnesses further find corroboration from the fact that an application for Sapurdari of T.V. And V.C.R., given by Rana Muhammad Jamil, P.W.2, was also recovered from the possession of Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I., at the time of raid. Muhammad Riaz Sahi appellant had simply stated that he had been involved in the instant case because of enmity, but in the absence of any enmity, brought on the record and in the absence of even a suggestion to that effect to the witnesses' in cross-examination, no importance can be attached to such a defence.
11. ' The contention of learned counsel for Muhammad Riaz Sahi appellant that he was not even present in the police station at the time when allegedly Rs,3,000 were paid to him because by virtue of Exh.P.W.1/2, a copy of the diary, he was not even present in the police station, is also without force. I have examined report No,38 made by Muhammad Riaz Sahi, Inspector, at 8 p.m. On 12-11-1985. According to the said report he was not feeling well because of headache and flue, therefore, could not perform his official duty. There is no mention that he was going to leave the police station. Similarly, the other report, ' Exh.D.W.1/3, dated 13-11-1985, only indicates that he was alright, therefore, could perform his official duty. In both the reports it is not mentioned that he was leaving the police station or he had come back in the police station. Had Muhammad Riaz Sahi appellant left the police station; he being a senior Police Officer would have recorded his departure and arrival. In the absence of that, it cannot be presumed that he was not present in the police station. In these circumstances, the contention of learned counsel is without force.
12. ' As far as the case of Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I., is concerned, Rs,2,000 were recovered from his possession in the presence of Mr. Muhammad Tariq Bajwa, Magistrate First Class, as well as Mr. Shafi-uz-Zaman, Special Magistrate, who were members of the raiding party. Both the witnesses were cross-examined at length but there is nothing on the record which could even remotely suggest that it would not be safe to rely upon their statements. Both the witnesses were judicial officers and had no connection with either side. At the time of recovery of Rs,2,000 from the possession of Pervez Akhtar, A.S.I. The raiding Magistrate Mr. Muhammad Tariq Bajwa, P.W.1, wanted to record the statement of the appellant but he did not make any statement. In these circumstances, his suggestion to the defence witnesses that he was offered money but declined to accept the same, therefore, it fell down and the raiding party picked it up, is without substance and an afterthought. The statements of Mr. Muhammad Tariq Bajwa, Magistrate P.W.1 and Mr. Shafi-uz- Zaman, Special Magistrate, P.W.9, get ample corroboration from the statements of the witnesses who were present at the time of raid. The appellant had not been able to furnish any explanation under what circumstances he came in possession of Rs,2,000 which were the same whose numbers had been noted down earlier by P.W.1.
13. ' For what has been discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond doubt. Resultantly their appeals fail which are accordingly dismissed.