1. ' Ali Akbar was sent up by Police Station Civil Lines, Faisalabad, for trial for an offence under section 165-A, P.P.C. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, Camp at Faisalabad, vide his judgment dated 14-4-1988, convicted and sentenced him under section 165-A, P.P.C. To six months' R.I. With a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default further R.I. For one month. Convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. ' The prosecution story in brief as disclosed in the F.I.R., Exh.PD, lodged by Ch.Muhammad Eisa, Superintendent, District Jail, Faisalabad, on 10-9-1984, at 10-30 a.m. Was to the effect that between the night of 9/10th September, 1984, in District Jail, Faisalabad, Muhammad Nawaz, was appointed as Gate Keeper, Muhammad Shafi was deputed as Santri in the Porch of District Jail, Faisalabad and his duty was from 2.00 a.m. To 6.00 a.m. At night. Ch. Muhammad Arif, Assistant Superintendent was duty officer. The appellant was temporary Warder of the District Jail. His duty was to start at 2 p.m. As well but did not come. There was some suspicion against the appellant that he used to supply narcotics to the prisoners in jail. The appellant came late. On the direction of Ch. Muhammad Arif, Muhammad Shafi, Santry, searched his person and from the pocket of his shirt a packet of cigarettes Morven was found. On opening, Charas and opium were found in it. On weighing 15 grams charas and 5 grams opium were found in the packet and the same were handed over to Ch. Muhammad Arif. While questioning, Ali Akbar appellant took out Rs,1,038 and tried to give it to Ch. Muhammad Arif as illegal gratification to let him off.
3. ' Munir Ahmed, S.I., P.W.-6 on receiving information came to Jail. He recorded complaint Exh.PB and sent the same to police station for registration of formal F.I.R. He prepared rough site plan of the place vide memo Exh. PC. He also took into possession Rs, 1,038 vide memo Exh.PA. After usual investigation he challaned the appellant.
4. ' The prosecution in support of its case had produced six witnesses in all. Muhammad Nawaz, P.W.1, stated that between the night of 9/10 September, 1984, he was posted as Gate Keeper of District Jail. His duty was from 2 at night to 6 a.m. Muhammad Shafi was posted with him as Santry. Ch. Muhammad Arif was night officer. Ali Akbar was posted as Warder. The appellant came 20-25 minutes late. On his personal search a packet of cigarettes was found containing charas and opium. P.W.-2 Ch. Muhammad Arif, stated that he was posted as night officer in District Jail, Faisalabad, during the night 9/10 September, 1984. He directed Muhammad Nawaz to search the appellant who took out a packet of cigarettes. On opening, it contained charas and opium. The witness took the appellant and others into his office where he took out Rs,1,038 and offered him as illegal gratification for not reporting the matter to the authorities. The witness informed his superiors whereupon the case was registered. Muhammad Shafi, P.W.-3, corroborated the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 by stating that he was also present at the spot on duty. Within his presence the occurrence took place. Ch. Muhammad Eisa P.W.4 was Superintendent, District Jail, Faisalabad. According to him he was informed by the night officer. He came to the spot and got the case registered. P.W.-5, Agha Sajjad Raza, Deputy Superintendent Jail, Faisalabad, stated that in his presence currency notes were handed over to investigating officer which were secured vide memo, Exh.PA and he signed. Further deposed that he was informed by Ch. Muhammad Arif, that charas and opium were recovered from a warder. Munir Ahmed, P.W.-6, had investigated the case.
5. ' At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He further stated that he had served with Ch. Muhammad Arif P.W. At different stations. He used to complain against the conduct of Ch. Muhammad Arif, therefore, he got annoyed and manoeuvred the present case against him. He further stated that he was apprehended from his house and taken to jail. He, however, did not produce any defence evidence.
6. ' It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against him was not proved at all. Submitted that there are glaring discrepancies between the statements of the witnesses.
7. Argued that the appellant was separately tried for being in possession of charas and opium but has since been acquitted and the witnesses produced by the prosecution were the same which have been produced in this case. Argued that the witnesses have since been disbelieved in one case, may not be relied upon in the instant case. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
8. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence. It is not disputed that the appellant was posted as Warder in District Jail, Faisalabad. He was on night duty which was to start at 2 p.m. Till 6 a.m. It is also not disputed that other witnesses were also on duty with him. The witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on record to indicate that any of them had a motive for the false involvement of the appellant. As a matter of fact no illwill was even suggested to Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad shall, P.Ws. It is unimaginable that all the officials of District Jail, Faisalabad, would falsely implicate the appellant in such an offence. The statements of the witnesses inspire confidence and can safely be relied upon. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that all the wintesses have been disbelieved in the other case, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their testimony, is without force. I have gone through in judgment delivered in the other case. The appellant was given the benefit of doubt because charas and opium was not sent to the Chemical Examiner for determination. This would clearly indicate that the witnesses were not disbelieved but the appellant was given the benefit of doubt on technical ground. There is, however, merit in the last contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1984 and the appellant has been facing hardships of trial since then. According to him, in such circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him would adequately meet the ends of justice because, during this period the appellant has already lost his job and he is the sole earning member of the family.
9. For what has been discussed above, it is held that the prosecution evidence inspires confidence and can be relied upon. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to .The period already undergone by the appellant as an under-trial prisoner. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. With this reduction in sentence the appeal is dismissed.