' Rana Shaukat Mahmood, former Revenue Minister, Punjab was tried by Choudhary Ghulam Rasool Azhar, Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Punjab, Lahore for abusing his position as public servant and gaining pecuniary advantage. By judgment dated 28-2-1978 he was convicted for misconduct under section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947 and sentenced to undergo 9 months R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs, 10,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. For 9 months. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him in another case by the same Court.
' He has appealed.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that Rana Shaukat Mahmood appellant while serving as Revenue Minister, Punjab, Lahore by abusing his official position as such illegally converted to his own use Vehicle No, LEK 3303 belonging to the Board of Revenue from July, 1976 to April, 1977 and consumed petrol worth Rs,18,750.83.
3. The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case. Of them, Muhammad Asif, Telephone attendant at the residence of Rana Shaukat Mahmood appellant, Chaudhry Riaz Ahmad, Private Secretary to Rana Shaukat Mahmood and Hadi Hassan, Driver are the material witnesses. Muhammad Asif P.W.2 and Ch. Riaz Ahmd P.W. 3 stated that they used to make entries in the log book of the vehicle in question. Hadi Hassan Driver P.W. 4 stated that he had been driver of Vehicle No, LEK 3303 from July, 1976 to April, 1977 and that he used to drive the vehicle to Head Balloki, Gujranwala, Rawalpindi and Islamabad. According to him Mubashir Hassan, brother-in-law of the appellant also travelled in the said car alongwith the staff attached to the appellant. He further stated that he took the children of the brother-in-law of the appellant to school and brought them back and some times the appellant's wife also drove the vehicle.
4. The appellant denied the prosecution allegations and stated that the case had been instituted against him as a part of character assassination campaign launched against various members of his party and also caused harassment and damage to his reputation as a citizen and as a politician. He did not produce any evidence in defence.
5. Relying on the prosecution evidence the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.
6. It is contended that evidence of Muhammad Asif P.W.2 and Ch. Riaz Ahmad P.W.3 had been wrongly ignored while that of Hadi Hassan P.W.4 had been illegally taken into consideration. Being an interested witness his evidence should not have been acted upon without independent corroboration.
7. There is no denying the fact that Car No,LEK-3303 was placed at the disposal of the appellant for official duty and he had consumed petrol valuing Rs,18,780.83 from July, 1976 to April, 1977. The daily consumption of the vehicle was stated to be about four gallons.
8. A brief reference to the evidence produced by the prosecution may be necessary to see whether the prosecution had been able to prove its case against the appellant or not. Mustafa Kamal P.W.1 Care-Taker, Board of Revenue, Punjab stated that there was no entry in the log book that staff car No,LEK-3303 had been used for private purposes. Muhammad Asif P.W.2 Telephone Attendant at the residence of Rana Shaukat Mahmood stated that the appellant had given instructions to the staff that official vehicle should not be misused by anybody. Ch. Riaz Ahmad, P.W.3, Private Secretary to Rana Shaukat Mahmood stated that he used to sign the entries in the log book pertaining to the vehicle in question. According to him, nobody had used the said vehicle for domestic purposes and that the appellant owned two vehicles one Toyota Car and a Land Rover.
Hadi Hassan P.W.4 Driver of Vehicle No,LEK-3303 stated that he had been carrying staff of the appellant and his brother-in-law to various places and some times the appellant's wife also used to drive the vehicle and that he took the children of the brother-in-law of the appellant to and from school. In cross-examination he stated that the Investigating Officer had told him that if he did not support the prosecution case he will have to pay for it. He further stated that the appellant never checked the entries of log book nor did he put his initials. He admitted that the staff of the Board of Revenue was also entitled to use the said vehicle and in fact they also used it during the relevant period. He also admitted that the family of the appellant also used their private vehicles. He admitted that the Board of Revenue had charged him for having tampered with the meter of the vehicle and that an inquiry was initiated against him which was dropped later on. He stated that he has been given clear orders by the appellant that the vehicle should not be used by any person except for official duty.
9. The prosecution was required to prove that the appellant had misused the official transport but it has failed to discharge the onus. The evidence produced by the prosecution does not show that the appellant had in fact allowed or directed the misuse of the vehicle in question. There is no material to show that his wife or brother-in-law had been using the official transport with his permission or knowledge. On the other hand, there is evidence on the record that the appellant had issued clear instructions that no member of his family or staff should use the official transport for their personal purpose. Hadi Hassan Driver P.W.4 does not appear to be an independent witness because according to his own showing an inquiry was initiated against him in tampering with the meter of the said vehicle which was dropped during the course of the trial of the appellant. The evidence of Ch. Riaz Ahmad P.W.3 is very material who stated that nobody had used the said car for domestic purposes. According to Hadi Hassan P.W.4, the appellant had never accompanied his wife or brother-in-law in the said car.
10. In view of the above circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove misconduct on the part of the appellant in using the vehicle in question.
' Accordingly, I accept the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him of the charge. The bail bonds are discharged.