Muhammad Siddique son of Abdus Sattar was sent up for trial by Police Station A.C.E., Sargodha, for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Special Judge, Anti---Corruption, Sargodha, vide his judgment, dated 2-3-1989, convicted and sentenced him to nine months' R.I. With a fine of Rs.5,000, or in default thereof, undergo further R.I.
For two months, under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the above-said Act. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. The prosecution story in brief, as disclosed m F.I.R. Exh. P.A. Lodged by Ahmad Khan, was to the effect that he had a butcher shop near Lakseen Bridge. Meat used to be approved by Muhammad Siddique, appellant, who was Veterinary Officer. Ten days before the registration of the case, Dr. Muhammad Siddique, the appellant, met him and told him that if the first informant was to pay Rs.200 per week, he would not check his meat for sale and he would be at liberty to sell any type of meat. The first informant accordingly agreed. Since he did not wish to pay the illegal gratification, therefore, the present case.
3. Malik Ghulam Muhammad, C.O./A.C.E., Sargodha, recorded the statement Exh. P.A. Of Ahmad Khan on 12-1-1988 and registered the case. Thereafter, he wrote application Exh. P.E. Requesting that a Magistrate be deputed to supervise the raid. Abdul Qadir Jasra, M.I.C., Sargodha, was, accordingly, deputed. The Magistrate recorded statement Exh. P.B. Of Ahmad Khan and also noted the numbers of currency notes to be passed on to Dr. Muhammad Siddique, appellant. The raiding party went to the office of the appellant. The first informant was sent inside, who after a while gave agreed signal to the raiding party. The raiding' party recovered tainted currency notes from the appellant. The raiding Magistrate once again recorded the statement of first informant Ahmad Khan vide Exh. P.D. And statement of the appellant vide Exh. P.J. After usual investigation the appellant was challaned.
4. The prosecution in support of its case produced three witnesses in all. Ahmad Khan P.W.1 supported the version given by him in the F.I.R. He refuted the suggestion that the appellant had challaned him for selling meat on meatless days. He showed his ignorance if his nephew Muhammad Ajmal was challaned by the appellant for selling meat not fit for human consumption and he gave an apology in writing. He also showed his ignorance if other butchers were also challaned by the appellant. Malik Ghulam Muhammad, C.O./A.C.E. And Mr. Abdul Qadir Jasra, M.I.C.
P.Ws. 2 and 3, respectively, gave a detailed account of the occurrence. Both of them stated that they alongwith the first informant went towards the office of the appellant. Both of them stayed outside while the first informant alone went inside. On his signal, they entered the office of the appellant and recovered the tainted currency notes from his pocket. In cross---examination, both of them admitted that they 'neither saw the money changing hands nor heard the conversation between the first informant and the appellant. Learned Magistrate further admitted that the appellant had pleaded that he had not accepted any illegal gratification, and the money was given to him on the pretext of paying to one Abdul Jabbar, dispenser of the appellant, as price of goat purchased by the complainant.
At the end of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question, he stated that the amount of Rs.200 was given to him by the complainant on the pretext that the same be given to Abdul Jabbar, Dispenser in the office of the appellant as price of goat purchased from him by the first informant. He also produced defence witnesses. Abdul Jabbar D.W.1 stated that he was Dispenser in the office of the appellant. He had sold a goat to the first informant for the sum of Rs.750. The price had not been paid to him. On 12-1-1988 the witness went to the shop of the complainant and demanded money, which he promised to pay. On the fateful day the first informant came to the office and paid Rs.200 with a request that the same be given to the witness as part payment of the price of the goat. Nazir Ahmad, D.W.2 stated that on the day of raid he had gone to the office of the appellant because his buffalo was not well. Within his hearing, the first informant paid Rs.200 to the appellant with a request that the same be given to Abdul Jabbar, Dispenser, .3s part payment. The appellant kept the money. Mahla, D.W.3 stated that he was present with Nazir Ahmad D.W., when the first informant paid Rs.200 to the appellant as part payment of the goat. The appellant also appeared in his defence on oath and pleaded innocence.
He further stated that the first informant had paid the money to him on the pretext of giving it to his dispenser who had supplied a goat to the first informant. He further stated that the motive for false involvement was that all the butchers were against him because he did not allow them to sell meat which was unfit for human consumption.
5. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not proved at all. Submitted that it had come on the record that the appellant had initiated proceedings against the nephew of the first informant as well as against him. In such circumstances, the first informant became an interested and inimical witness. Argued that the Investigating Officer as well as the Magistrate did not hear the conversation, therefore, their evidence was of no use to the prosecution. Argued that the appellant at the very outset had given very plausible explanation regarding the alleged illegal gratification, which has been corroborated by the D.Ws. The contentions were opposed by learned Counsel for the State.
6. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence. In this case the appellant when arrested at the spot made a statement wherein he stated that he did receive Rs.200 from the first informant but the same was to be passed on to his dispenser Abdul Jabbar who had supplied a goat to the first informant for Rs.750. Rs.200 was paid as part payment towards the said sale price. At the trial stage also, the appellant did accept the fact that tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession, but his explanation was the same that he had given before the Magistrate at the time of raid. In these circumstances, the statements of the Investigating Officer and the learned Magistrate do not become very relevant because they are only the witnesses of recovery of Rs.200 from the appellant. This is accepted by the appellant as well. In order to determine whether the money was received as illegal gratification or not, the statements of these two witnesses are not helpful at all. The only witness is Ahmad Khan, P.W.1 who asserts that the money was taken by the appellant as illegal gratification. In his cross-examination he admitted that his nephew was proceeded against by the appellant. He also admitted that some other butchers were challaned by the appellant. In these circumstances, I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the witness had some enmity and ill will against the appellant.
On the other hand, the appellant at the time of raid gave explanation, which is quite plausible. The same stands corroborated by the defence witnesses including Abdul Jabbar D.W.1 who stated that the money recovered from the appellant was part payment which Ahmad Khan had made to him.
Since he was not in the office at that time, therefore, he left the money with the appellant. Nazir Ahmad and Mahla, D.Ws.2 and 3, are witnesses from the public. They are not connected with either side in any manner. Both of them were present in the office of the appellant. They heard the conversation between the appellant and the first informant. Both of them have asserted that the first informant had given Rs.200 to the appellant with a request that the same be given to Abdul Jabbar, Dispenser as part payment of price of goat. Their statements inspire confidence and can safely be relied upon as against the uncorroborated interested statement of the first informant.
For what has been discussed above, I hold that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond doubt, therefore, I accept the appeal set aside the judgment impugned and acquit the appellant. He is on bail. His bail bond shall, stand discharged.