' Ghulam Nabi, Patwari, Halqa Kohar, District Gujrat, was sent up by Gujranwala, to face trial, 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 22-2-1989 convicted and sentenced him under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of P.CA., 1947, to one year R.I. with a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default thereof 3 months' R.I. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of this appeal.
2. The prosecution story in brief as disclosed in the F.I.R, Exh.PA, lodged by Munir Hussain, was to the effect that he was an agriculturist of Village Kohar. He was also attorney of his uncle with regard to 615 Kanals of land. Ghulam Nabi was Patwari of the Halqa. The first informant applied for copy of Fard Haqiat from the record to know their ownership for which he demanded Rs.4,000 which was duly paid. Subsequently, Girdawaris were changed, therefore, the first informant again asked Ghulam Nabi Patwari for copy of girdawaris for which he demanded Rs.3,000. The bargain was struck at Rs.2,000. Since the complainant did not wish to pay the said amount, therefore, matter was reported to A.C.E. Gujrat.
' Mustjab Hussain Shah, Inspector, P.W. 4, got recorded F.I.R. Exh.PA on 26-3-1986, on the statement of Munir Hussain complainant. Thereafter he moved an application Exh.PD and obtained orders of A.C.E. deputing Farooq Ahmed, Magistrate Kharian, to supervise raid.
' Farooq Ahmed, Magistrate, P.W. 3, recorded the statement of Munir Hussain, Exh.PB and thereafter noted down the numbers of the currency notes to be passed on to the accused. Munir Hussain subsequently informed the Magistrate that he had handed over the money to the accused. Farooq Ahmad Magistrate with other officials came to the house of the accused and demanded money which was handed over to him. On comparison it transpired that the money was the same which was handed over to the complainant earlier. Thereafter statement of the accused Exh.PG was recorded wherein he stated that he had taken Rs.2,000 from the first informant as loan. At that time another person was sitting with him. After usual investigation challan was submitted in Court.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced four witnesses in all. P.W.1 Munir Hussain supported the prosecution version by corroborating the allegations contained in the F.I.R. In cross- examination he however admitted that the accused had received Rs.2,000 from him as loan but it was prior to the raid. He also admitted that at the time of raid one Abdus Salam son of Fateh Muhammad D.W.1, was present with the Patwari. Farooq Ahmed, M.I.C., P.W.3 and Mustajab Hussain Shah, Inspector, P.W.4 supported the prosecution case. In cross-examination, however, both of them had admitted that they neither saw the transaction nor heard the conversation.
' The appellant at the conclusion of prosecution evidence refuted the prosecution allegations and stated that he had obtained a loan of Rs.2,000 from the first informant who got registered the case because of mala fides. According to him the first informant wanted him to prepare a fictitious copy of Khasra Girdawari which he refused, therefore, the present case.
' He also produced -a defence witness in support of his defence. Abdus Salam, D.W.1 stated that at the time of raid he was present with the accused. The accused received Rs.2,000 from the complainant as a loan.
' It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that case against appellant was not proved at all. Argued that the prosecution case if kept in juxtaposition with the defence version, defence version would be more plausible and the same may be relied upon. Argued that except for statement of Munir Hussain, no other witness had either seen the tainted money changing hands or heard the conversation. As far as Munir Hussain complainant is concerned he cannot be relied upon because he had suppressed material fact in F.I.R. by not disclosing that on the same day he had advanced a loan of Rs.2,000 to the appellant. Contentions have been opposed by learned Assistant Advocate-General.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. As far as Munir Hussain complainant is concerned he had admitted that he paid Rs.2,000 to the appellant.
He also admitted that D.W.1 was present with the Patwari at the time of raid and in his presence he had paid the money to the appellant. He, however, refuted the suggestion that it was a false case.
As far as the- other witnesses are concerned they are immaterial because they could not throw any light about the involvement of the appellant. Their evidence even if believed is only to the extent that tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant. Even if this aspect of the case is accepted yet it cannot prove the guilt of the appellant because at the time of raid he gave an explanation accepting that he had received money which was loaned to him. In support of his defence version he had produced D.W.1. In these circumstances, I feel defence version is more plausible than the prosecution case. The prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the appeal is accepted. Conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. Appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged.