Muhammad Tahir appellant a revenue Patwari was convicted by learned Special Judge Anti- Corruption, Lahore vide his judgment, dated 7-2-1.990 for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. And sentenced to 6 months R.I. And a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof 2 months' R.I. He had appealed.
2. Muhammad Pervaiz complainant (P.W.2) wanted a mutation to be entered. He moved application to the A.C. On 28-12-1987 upon which proceedings were to be taken by the appellant who demanded Rs.200 as illegal gratification. He reported the matter to Abdul Mateen Circle Officer (P.W.3) who took him to Raja Bashir Ahmad, Magistrate 1 Class (P.W.1). He recorded his statement, advanced Rs.200 in three currency notes after signing the same to be passed on to the appellant and a raid was conducted on 29-12-1987., The appellant was found to be in possession of the three currency notes which were recovered and he was arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the raid was in violation of Rule 14 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985 framed under Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance 1961 and there were so material contradiction in the statements of the witnesses that it could not be said that the charge was proved beyond any reasonable doubt. After hearing him and the learned counsel for the State and having gone through the record, I am inclined to agree with the latter part of the argument.
4. Rule 14, referred to above, provides that for trap raid the Magistrate is to be deputed by the D.C.
Or the A.D.C. But the Rule seems to be only directory and not a mandatory one. Any Magistrate if approached by any officer of the Anti-Corruption Establishment, if he considers proper there can be said to be no legal bar in his way to be incharge of the raid.st
5. The case of the prosecution was that on a settled signal, the raid party i.e. The Magistrate and the Circle Officer had to reach the premises of the appellant to which the complainant had gone to pass on the money and that on his signal the raid was conducted and money recovered. There was material contradictions between the statements of the witnesses in this regard. It is an admitted fact that the Magistrate and the Circle Officer did not witness the passing of the actual money to the appellant nor heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant.
The Magistrate stated that the signal was settled on the road side when the complainant was dropped to go to the premises of the appellant. He also stated that the complainant came down the stairs in the Bazar, made the settled signal and then the raid was conducted. The Circle Officer has stated that the complainant stood in a terrace like Veranda, did not come down the stairs and from there made the signal. The complainant himself has deposed that he had asked the raiding party to follow him after 2/5 minutes and he does not say a single word that he made any signal.
The Magistrate deposed that the money was in the right pocket of the sweater of the appellant and asserted with confidence that it was not in the pocket of the shirt under the sweater of the appellant. He had so recorded in his report (Exh.P.1/4), was confronted and contradicted. The Circle Officer admitted that the money was taken out from the pocket of the shirt under the sweater. The complainant admitted the suggestion as correct that the appellant had firstly refused to receive the money and when he insisted then it was accepted. He also stated that when he heard the foot steps on the stairs_then he put the money in the sweater. It is also the case of the appellant that he had refused to accept money and when the complainant was insisting to pass on money to him the raid was conducted. It is also an admitted fact that 3 persons including Chanan, a peon and Abdul Rehman a Councillor (D.Ws. 1 and 2) were present at the spot and they have supported the appellant that the complainant had put the money upon the person of-the appellant without any demand or insistence by him in this behalf.
6. Thus, the charge cannot be said to have been proved from this evidence against the appellant.
He is granted the benefit of doubt and is hereby acquitted. His appeal stands accepted. He is on bail and stands discharged of the bail bonds.