1. Khalid Pervez was sent up by Police Station A.C.E., Sargodha, for an offence under section 161, P.P.C.
2. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, Camp at Faisalabad, vide his judgment, dated 19-7-1986, convicted and sentenced him under section 161, P.P.C. To simple imprisonment for one month with a fine of Rs.1,000, or in default further S.I. For one month. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that one Abdul Hafeez, a Rickshaw Driver appeared before Gul Muhammad, S.I., and got the F.I.R., Exh.P.A., registered on 20-12-1982 to the effect that he was a rickshaw driver for the last four years. Khalid Pervez, a police constable had started challening him.
4. Previously he received Rs.150, as illegal gratification for not challening him. On 20-12-1982, Abdul Hafeez, PW was waiting for passengers at Lorry Adda when Khalid Pervez came there. He was going to challan the complainant but then demanded Rs.50, as bribe. The first informant promised to pay the same and went away. Since he did not wish to pay illegal gratification, therefore, reported the matter. Gul Muhammad, S.I. Moved an application for deputing a Magistrate to supervise a raid. Ch. Ghulam Nabi, M.I.C. Was accordingly deputed who recorded the statement Exh.P.D. Of Abdul Hafeez and constituted a raiding party. They went to Lorry Adda where complainant was sitting alone. On receiving secret signal they vent there and found one Muhammad Arshad Constable was present there. They recovered currency note of Rs.50, from his possession who was accordingly arrested.
5. Thereafter, they were informed that Khalid Pervez who had demanded illegal gratification had come to Lorry Adda. The complainant one again said that the same note was passed on to Khalid Pervez and the raiding party recovered from him. Once again the statement, Exh.P.C. Of the complainant was recorded. The statement of Khalid Pervez was also recorded wherein he refuted the allegations. After usual investigation challan against the appellants was submitted.
6. The prosecution in support of its case produced four witnesses in all. Abdul Hafeez P.W. Supported the prosecution version as given in the F.I.R. In cross-examination, he stated that one Shaft constable had witnessed the money changing hands. He also stated that Shafi constable had arrested the accused and brought him before the Magistrate. Malik Gul Muhammad, S.I P.W.2, corroborated the prosecution version and stated that when Khalid Pervez appellant was arrested he was holding Rs.50, in his hand which he threw down. He, however, admitted that he neither heard the conversation nor saw the money changing hands. He stated that the raiding Magistrate and the witness had gone to the place where the appellant was standing and he was not brought to them by Shaft constable. Muhammad Shaft, P.W.3, stated that he did not witness the occurrence but only saw the signal of the complainant. He stated that they arrested the accused. Ch. Ghulam Nabi, M.I.C. P.W.4, stated that he was supervising the raid. On receiving signal he went to the accused and saw him holding tainted currency note in his hand which he threw away. He stated that he had picked up the note which was thrown by the appellant. He further stated that he recorded the statement Exh.P.J. Of the appellant and obtained his signatures without recording the contents of his statement.
7. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined without oath wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He also produced one Resham Khan as D.W.1. He was Manager Rajput Transport Service Sargodha and in his presence no raid took place. According to him he did not see the appellant meeting the first informant on the said day.
8. Abdul Sattar, D.W.2, also pleaded innocence of the accused. Khalid Pervez appellant appeared as D.W.3 and pleaded innocence.
9. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against him was false.
10. Submitted that it was unusual way of conducting a raid because the learned Magistrate had arrested Muhammad Arshad constable from whose possession tainted currency note was recovered. He was let off and currency note was planted on the appellant. Argued that neither raiding Magistrate nor the S.I. Heard the conversation or saw the money changing hand. In such circumstances uncorroborated testimony of Abdul Hafeez complainant could not be relied upon.
11. Contentions have been controverted by learned counsel for the State.
12. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence. Abdul Hafeez, P.W.1 had got the case registered against the appellant wherein he had asserted that Khalid Pervez demanded illegal gratification yet when sent by the raiding party he paid the same amount to one Muhammad Arshad constable and gave signal to the raiding party. There is no explanation on the file why the money was passed on to said Muhammad Arshad, constable who was also arrested and the tainted currency note was taken into possession yet the same was one again given to the complainant for passing it on to the appellant. This fact alone makes the entire proceedings highly doubtful. There are glaring discrepancies between the statements of the first informant and the other witnesses. Abdul Hafeez P.W. And stated that when the money was passed on to the appellant Muhammad Shari, constable P.W. Caught hold of him from his arm and brought him before the Magistrate where the tainted currency notes were taken into possession. He has been belied by the other witnesses including the Magistrate who stated that on receiving signal they went up to Khalid Pervez appellant who threw the money on the ground from where it was picked up. The learned Magistrate as well as the S.I. Admitted that they did not hear the conversation nor saw the money changing hand. As far as the recovery of tainted currency note is concerned the witnesses had belied each other. There is no explanation why money was given to another constable earlier and after the raid the same was taken back and handed over to the first informant.
13. For what has been discussed above, I hold that the prosecution case is not free from doubt, therefore, giving the benefit of doubt, I accept the appeal and set aside the conviction.