Hamid Ali, aged 30 years, was tried by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, camp at Faisalabad, for an offence under section 161 P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 23-2-1988 convicted and sentenced him to one year's R.I. With a fine of Rs.1,000, or in default three months' R.I. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as disclosed in the F.I.R. Exh. PA lodged by Abdul Hafeez was to the effect that Hamid Ali (appellant) who was employed in the Games Department, had apprehended Nazir son of Lai Din and his father Lai Din as they were indulging in Shikar. Said Hamid Ali had written their names on a white paper. The first informant requested Hamid Ali to (cave the above said two persons, whereupon he demanded Rs.200 as illegal gratification with the promise that he would not challan them. The first informant promised to pay the same within four days. Since he did not wish to pay illegal gratification, therefore, the present case.
Saadullah Khan, C.O./A.C.E., Faisalabad, P.W.1, recorded F.I.R. Exh.P.A. At the instance of Abdul Hafeez on 4-3-1987. Thereafter, he wrote an application with the request that some Magistrate may supervise the raid. Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad, M.I.C. (P.W.2) was, accordingly, deputed. Abdul Hafeez, P.W.3 was produced before the raiding Magistrate, who recorded his statement Exh. P.F. He also noted down the numbers of currency notes to be passed on. Thereafter the raiding party went to Dajkot Adda. The complainant gave a signal, whereupon the raiding party came to the shop of one Rehmatullah, where Hamid Ali, appellant, was also present. From his search, tainted currency notes of Rs.200 were secured. The Magistrate also recorded the statement Exh. P.J. Of Hamid Ali, whereupon he stated that he had been posted 20/25 days earlier. On the day of raid at about 10/11 a.m., the complainant came to him and invited him for lunch. The accused agreed. While he was waiting for the complainant as he had gone away, Abdul Sattar, P.W., came and gave two currency notes of Rs.100 each. The appellant asked him why they were being given to him, whereupon said Abdul Sattar said that he would tell him. In the meanwhile, the raiding party came and apprehended him. After usual investigation, Saadullah Khan, C.O./A.C.E. Challaned the appellant.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced four witnesses. Saadullah Khan, C.O./A.C.E., P.W.1 stated that on 4-3-1987, Abdul Hafeez, complainant came to him. He recorded F.I.R. Exh. PA. On his statement and produced him before the Magistrate, who also recorded his statement. He joined the raiding party. On receipt of signal they raided the shop of Rehmatullah and secured currency notes from his pocket. In cross-examination, he, however, admitted that he had neither heard the conversation nor saw the money changing hands. He also had to admit that he did not record the statement of Rehmatullah in whose shop the raid had been conducted. He also admitted that the appellant at the very outset stated that he had been brought there for serving meals, and further stated that Rs.200 had been given to him by Abdul Sattar, P.W. Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad, M.I.C., P.W.2, gave a detailed account of the proceedings the way that transpired. He also stated that he had recorded the statement of the first informant, and thereafter constituted a raiding party, and after the raid he once again recorded his statement as well as the statement of the appellant. In cross-- -examination, he, however, admitted that he did not hear the conversation nor saw the money changing hands. He admitted that the appellant had stated before him that the money was given to him by one Abdul Sattar, P.W. He further admitted that the appellant had stated that he had been invited on the pretext of lunch. The Magistrate further admitted that the appellant had stated that he was still enquiring from said Abdul Sattar, PW, about the money when the raid took place.
Abdul Hafeez, P.W.3, corroborated the statement of the earlier witnesses by giving a detailed account of the occurrence. He admitted that his statement was recorded once by the investigating officer, and twice by the raiding Magistrate. He admitted that the statement of Rehmatullah, in whose shop the raid had taken place, was not recorded. He further admitted that he had given the money to Abdul Sattar, PW, and at the time of handing over money by Abdul Sattar, no talk between the appellant and the witness took place. Abdul Sattar, PW-4 stated that on the day of raid, complainant Abdul Hafeez came to him and gave him Rs.200 by saying that he was late and the appellant may not accept money from him. The witness paid money to the appellant which was accepted by him and he put it into his pocket, and the recovery of said tainted currency notes was effected from his pocket. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had taken the shop for preparing meals for himself. He further stated that the complainant came first alone and paid him the money to be passed on to the appellant. He further stated that he had not invited the appellant for meals. He was confronted with his statement made before the police wherein he had stated so and could not give any explanation.
At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not proved at all. Submitted that it has come on record that illegal gratification was not given by the complainant but for reasons best known to him it was paid to Abdul Sattar, P.W. Contends that if the defence version is put in juxtaposition with the prosecution allegations, the defence version is more plausible. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. As far as Abdul Hafeez, P.W., is concerned, he had lodged the F.I.R., wherein he specifically asserted that the appellant had demanded illegal gratification from him and he was to pay the same on the day the raid took place. In these circumstances, his statement becomes extremely doubtful because, instead of paying the amount himself he chose to give it to one Abdul Sattar from whom the appellant had neither demanded illegal gratification nor he was present at the time the bargain was struck. If the complainant was present at the time of raid, what prevented him from passing of the bribe money himself. In the absence of any explanation, I feel his statement becomes extremely doubtful. As far as the raiding Magistrate and the investigating officer, who were members of the raiding party, are concerned, their statements in view of the facts of this case are not very important. Both of them had neither seen the money changing hands nor heard the conversation between the parties. As far as Abdul Sattar, P.W.4, is concerned, he had not been able to give any explanation why he agreed to pass on the bribe money to the appellant when the complainant himself was present there. His presence, even otherwise, becomes doubtful because, according to him lie had taken the shop, where the raid was conducted, only for preparing meals for himself. This, on the face of it, is extremely unnatural.
As discussed above, the prosecution story is not free from doubts. On the other hand, the plea of the appellant that the money was given to him by Abdul Sattar on which lie asked why the said money was being given to him; before he could give any answer the raiding party came and apprehended the appellate appears to be more plausible. In such circumstances, if the defence version is kept in juxtaposition with the prosecution case, the defence version becomes more plausible.
For what has been discussed above, I hold that it would be extremely unsafe to rely upon the prosecution evidence for reasons discussed above. Therefore, I accept the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.