Muhammad Bashir son of Allah Rakha, aged 52 years, was sent up for trial by Police Station A.C.E., Gujranwala for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala, vide his judgment, dated 21-9- 1986 convicted and sentenced him under section 161, P.P.C, read with section 5(2) of the abovesaid Act to R.I. For one month and a fine of Rs.1,000, or in default one month's 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.P.A. Lodged by Muhammad Faiz Rabbani on 27-6-1983. Was to the effect that he had obtained warrant for possession of Kliasra Nos. 2226 and 2228. The case was pending before the Girdawar for execution. Muhammad Bashir was Patwari Halqa. He demanded Rs.150 from the first informant for producing the record, which were accordingly paid. Subsequently, Patwari Muhammad Bashir again demanded Rs.100 for producing the record. Since the first informant did not wish to pay the. Said amount, he informed the authorities concerned. Mehar Zulfiqar Ali Inspector, A.C.E. After recording F.I.R. Exh. P.A. Wrote application Exh. P.L. For deputing a Magistrate to supervise the raid. Ch, Jamil Ahmad, M.I.C., was, accordingly, deputed, who recorded the statement of Muhammad Faiz Rabbani vide memo. Exh.
P.B. Thereafter, he noted the numbers of the currency notes and went to the spot with the raiding party. They sent the first informant alone to the house of the Patwari, who brought him outside his house. Within their view they saw the Patwari accepting Rs.100 from the first informant. When he was going back, he was apprehended, whereupon he threw the money in a drain, from where it was picked up. The Magistrate once again recorded-the statement of Muhammad Faiz Rabbani vide Exh. P.C. Thereafter he also recorded, the statement of Muhammad Bashir, Patwari vide memo.1 Exh. P.D., wherein he stated that he had not received any money as illegal gratification, though the first informant insisted on paying him some money but he refused to accept the same and threw it into the drain. Mehar Zulfiqar Ali, P.W.3 after usual investigation challaned the appellant.
3. It may, however, be mentioned that one Muhammad Nawaz, had also got F.I.R. Exh. P.I. Registered with the allegation that the appellant was demanding Rs.100 from him as illegal gratification. He had also accompanied the raiding party and paid the amount of Rs.100 within the view of the raiding party. However, at trial stage, he did not support the prosecution case, therefore, the appellant was acquitted in F.I.R. Exh. P.I.
As far as the case relating to F.I.R. Exh. PA. Is concerned, the prosecution produced four witnesses in all. P.W.1 Muhammad Faiz Rabbani stated that he had paid Rs.150 to the appellant earlier with the understanding that he would produce the record before the Girdawar but he did not do so and demanded Rs.100 more. He reported the matter. A raiding party was constituted which apprehended the appellant red-handed. He was cross-examined at length wherein the defence counsel tried to bring on record family disputes of the witness. He did not cross-examine him about the occurrence nor any question was put to this witness indicating any motive for the false involvement of the appellant. P.W.2 Muhammad Nawaz., who had lodged F.I.R. Exh. P.I. Against the appellant, did not support the prosecution case, therefore, was declared hostile. P.Ws.3 and 4, Mehar Zulfiqar, Inspector, and Ch. Jamil Ahmad, M.I.C. Respectively, supported the prosecution version by stating that the complainant had got the case registered against the appellant. His statement was recorded and thereafter within their view the money was paid to the appellant, which amount was recovered.
At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He also produced two defence witnesses and appeared on oath in his defence as well. D.W.1 Mst. Bashir Begum was step-mother of the first informant. She deposed about her dispute about property with the first informant. She has not said a word about the present case. Similarly, Muhammad Saeed, D.W.2 had stated that he knew the appellant as well as Faiz Rabbani the first informant. According to him, in June, 1983, he saw the first informant going to the house of the appellant. Then, within his view the first informant tried to give some money to the appellant which he refused and threw it in a nearby drain. In cross-examination he stated that he did not appear before the Investigating Officer or made any application before any authority regarding the false involvement of the appellant. The appellant appeared as D.W.3. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He further stated that he had not made any statement before the raiding Magistrate though his signatures were obtained.
4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was doubtful because the raiding party did not hear the conversation. Argued that the appellant was not in a position to show any favour to the first informant as the order had to be passed by the Girdawar, therefore there was no occasion for him to demand illegal gratification. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. It is admitted that the appellant was Halqa Patwari, where the first informant had obtained warrant of possession. It is correct that the raiding party had not heard the conversation between the first informant and the appellant but they did see the money changing hands. According to the statement of the Magistrate corroborated by the Investigating Officer, when the appellant was apprehended, he threw the money into a drain from where it was secured. His statement was recorded by the Magistrate at the spot, wherein he refuted the allegations and stated that the first informant had paid him money, which he did not accept and threw it away. In the cross- examination of these two witnesses, I have noticed that they have not even been suggested any enmity with the appellant nor any motive for his false involvement. I have not been able to find out any reason why a Magistrate would give false evidence against a Patwari. Their statements inspire confidence and can safely be relied upon. As far as the contention That the conversation was not heard by the raiding party, I am of the view that it is also of not much significance. Had the appellant owned his statement made before the raiding Magistrate then this contention could be of some importance. He has simply denied the prosecution allegations. In this view of the matter, his statement before the Magistrate assumes importance because he has admitted that he was offered money, but he denied the same in his statement before the Court.
After going through the statements of the prosecution witnesses, I hold that they inspire confidence and can be relied upon. There is, however, some substance in the contention of the learned counsel that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1983. The appellant was tried in the year 1986 and at that time he was 52 years of age, therefore, he may not be sent behind the bars to serve the remaining period of his sentence. In these circumstances, while dismissing the appeal, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine shall, however, be maintained. The appeal is dismissed in these terms.