Muhammad Riaz appellant was charged for the alleged commission of offences punishable under section 468, P.P.C. And under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947.
2. Through his judgment, dated 24-11-1990, the learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) at Sargodha acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 468, P.P.C. But found him guilty of the offence punishable under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and after convicting him accordingly sentenced him to six months' R.I. With a fine of Rs.10,000 or sufferance of two months'
R.I. In default of payment of the fine. An amount of Rs.6,000 out of amount of fine was directed to be paid to Samand Khan complainant.
3. The criminal proceedings against the appellant had commenced in pursuance of an application (Exh.P.A.) submitted by Samand Khan complainant (P.W.1) before the Deputy Director of Anti- Corruption at Sargodha alleging therein that while posted as Patwari (Consolidation), the appellant had obtained a loan of Rs.6,000 from him but instead of returning the same within one month as promised, the appellant had stated that he had adjusted the said amount towards the fee and towards illegal gratification for the two mutations which he had entered at the instance of the complainant and the Fardat which he had supplied to the complainant.
4. On the said application, an F.I.R. Bearing No.33 (Exh.PA./1) was registered at Police Station A.C.E.
Sargodha for the alleged commission of offences punishable under section 467/468/421, P.P.C.
Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and after the requisite investigation, the appellant was challaned to face the trial against him.
5. During the statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And as also during the statement of the appellant recorded on oath under section 340, Cr.P.C. The appellant had denied having received any amount of money from the complainant as loan or otherwise. He also denied having entered any mutations relating to the inheritance of the complainant's mother or having supplied copies of Khasra Girdawaris to him.
6. Samand Khan complainant appearing as P.W.1 had stated in his examination-in-chief that he had given the amount in question to the aforementioned Patwari as loan and it was on his request for the return of the said amount that the accused had stated that he had adjusted the same towards the bribe for entering the mutations abovementioned and for supplying the said copies.
7. The complainant had admitted that the appellant was Consolidation Patwari in his village and that the consolidation proceedings which had commenced in the year 1975 had been finalized on 29-6-1977 when the said consolidation scheme became final.
8. He further admitted that the amount in question had been given by him to the Patwari after the finalization of the consolidation scheme. He also admitted in his cross-examination that he had filed appeals against the consolidation proceedings being aggrieved of the same, inter alia, on the plea that the appellant had tampered with the consolidation record.
9. From the testimony of the complainant himself it transpires that the amount in question had been given by him to the appellant after the conclusion of the consolidation proceedings when the appellant had ceased to have any authority or power to show any favour or disfavour to the complainant. In the circumstances even if it be conceded or believed that the appellant had taken the amount in question from the complainant, it cannot be said that he had obtained the same as illegal gratification or as compensation or reward for showing any favour or disfavour to the complainant.
10. The contention of the complainant that he had filed appeals against the consolidation scheme prepared by Patwari and further that his plea in the said appeals was that the appellant had tampered with the consolidation record, would further demonstrate that the appellant had shown no favour to the complainant in the discharge of his official duties.
11. This submission demonstrates, on the contrary, that the complainant was not satisfied or pleased with the official functions performed by the Patwari and the possibility of the present proceedings having been commenced by the complainant on account of this grievance, cannot be ruled out.
12. It is also on record that the amount in question had been paid by the complainant to the appellant in the year 1977 and it was in the year 1980 that he submitted his application (Exh.PA.) to the Deputy Director of A.C.E. Such a long silence on the part of the complainant further militates against the veracity of his claim.
13. In view of what has been noticed above, even if it be accepted that the amount in question had been paid by the complainant to the appellant, the said transaction does not fall within the purview of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in the circumstances no finding on the question of payment or non-payment by the appellant to the complainant of the said amount is called for.
14. Consequently, the conviction and the sentences recorded against the appellant under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 through the impugned judgement, dated 24-11-1990 of the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Sargodha are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said charge. He is on bail and is set at liberty after being discharged from his bail/surety bonds.
15. This appeal is thus disposed of as having been allowed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.