' The appellants were convicted under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with section 109, P.P.C. By Malik Muhammad Afzal, Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha Camp at Jhang, vide his judgment, dated 21-4-1988, and Imtiaz Ali appellant No,1 was sentenced to R.I. For nine months and a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default of paythent of fine further R.I. For three months under section 5(2)/47 ibid, out of fine, if realized from appellant No,1, it was ordered that Rs,3,400 would be paid to Nur Din (P.W.3), and Ali Hasan appellant No,2 was sentenced to R.I. For nine months and a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default of payment of fine further R.I. For three months under section 109, P.P.C. Out of fine, if realized from appellant No,2, it was ordered that Rs,6,600 would be paid to Nur Din (P.W.3). The appellants have filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment.
2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that Nur Din (P.W.3) wanted to transfer his land by way of a gift to Mushtaq Ahmad (P.W.1), his real son. Ali Hassan appellant No,2 is cousin of complainant Mushtaq Ahmad (P.W.1) and he asked his father Nur Din (P.W.3) that he should pay a sum of Rs,10,000 as bribe for the aforesaid mutation of gift which would be paid to Imtiaz Ali appellant No,1 through his good offices and Nur Din (P.W.3) paid Rs,10,000 to All Hassan appellant No,2 which were ultimately given to Imtiaz Ali Patwari appellant No,1 by way of bribe and after receiving the bribe Mutation No,2034 was sanctioned in favour of Mushtaq Ahmad (P.W.1) on 20-2- 1984 on the report of Ali Hassan appellant No,1 (Halqa Patwari) dated 17-2-1984.
3. The prosecuton in support of its case produced ten witnesses. The prosecution led evidence against the appellants in the form of extra-judicial confession and direct evidence with respect to the demand of bribe by Ali Hassan appellant No,2 on behalf of Imtiaz Ali appellant No,1 (Halqa Patwari).
4. Believing the prosecution evidence the learned Special Judge vide the impugned judgment convicted the appellants as mentioned above.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants raised the following contentions in support of their appeal:--
(i) That the F.I.R. Was lodged after inordinate delay of 19 months which remained unexplained.
(ii) That there is no corroborative evidence on the record and in the presence of admitted enmity between Ali Hassan appellant No,2 and the complainant, the conviction cannot be maintained on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant and his father Nur Din (P.W.3).
(iii) That the complainant knew about the factum of the receipt of the bribe by Ali Hassan appellant No,2 a few days after the transaction but he did not report the matter promptly to the concerned authorities and in the absences of any cogent evidence his uncorroborated evidence should not be believed.
(iv) That the evidence of extra-judicial confession furnished by Sher Din (P.W.5), Muhammad Ishaq (P.W.6) and Malazam Hussain (P.W.7) is the weakest type of evidence, as it is not coming from unimpeachable source, hence no conviction can be maintained on this evidence. The learned trial Judge has erred in law while placing reliance on the evidence of such a dubious character. In the departmental enquiry appellant No,1 lmtiaz All Patwari was found innocent as is apparent from Exh.D.B., hence the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, so the appeal may be accepted.
6. The learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment for the reasons mentioned therein.
7. I have gone through the record of the case minutely with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Admittedly complainant Mushtaq Ahmad (P.W.1) moved the District Magistrate, Jhang for the registration of a case against the appellants on 14-9-1985, whereas the occurrence took place on 17-2-1984. The District Magistrate entrusted this complaint to Mehr Zulfiqar Ali C.O./A.C.E. Jhang for preliminary enquiry and thereafter the case was registered against the appellants on the basis of that enquiry report. The complainant did not mention the names of the persons in whose presence the bribe money was paid to All Hassan appellant No,2. For the first time Nur Din (P.W.3) disclosed that the alleged bribe money was paid in the presence of Liaqat and Hafeez P.Ws. Neither the time nor the place where the bribe money was given is mentioned in the complaint Exh.PA. Or in the evidence of Nur Din (P.W.3). Even Nur Din P.W. Conceded in his testimony that he had some dispute with Ali Hassan appellant No,2 over the purchase of the buffalo and bicycle prior to the mutation of the gift. Both Liaqat and Hafeez P.Ws. Are from the brotherhood of Nur Din P.W. In view of the admitted acrimony between the appellant All Hassan and Nur Din (P.W.3) it would not be safe to place implicit reliance on the evidence of these witnesses without any independent corroboration.
The prosecution in addition to this evidence has placed reliance on the evidence of extra-judicial confession made by Imtiaz Ali appellant No,1 before Sher Din (P.W.5), Muhammad Ishaq (P.W.6) and Mulazam Hussain (P.W.7) an Advocate of Chiniot. This piece of evidence is a 'glaring example of police padding because no sane person would make extra-judicial confession before so many persons at such a belated stage. Over and above this, Sher Din (P.W.5) and Muhammad Ishaq (P.W.6) being near and dear of Nur Din (P.W.3) had some motive to depose falsely against the appellants. The evidence of Mulazam Hussain (P.W.7) stands contradicted by the evidence of Saeed. Ahmad (D.W.3) Stenographer of A.C. Who categorcially deposed that no meeting was held in his office in which Imtiaz All appellant No,1 allegedly made any extra-judicial confession regarding the accepting of bribe money from Nur Din (P.W.3). Admittedly, the evidence of extra- judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence, normally no Court would maintain the conviction on such evidence unless it gets support from some other independent evidence, which is missing in the present case. The prosecution has failed to furnish any reasonable or plausible explanation, why complainant or his father failed to report the matter to the police or the superior officer of appellant No,1 immediately, this inordinate delay in lodging the complaint leads to this inference that the prosecution version might be false and the complainant might have filed this belated complaint due to the dispute/enmity admitted by Nur Din (P.W.3) in his testimony.
9. In view of the above discussion, I find the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, hence this appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentences of the appellants are set aside. They are on bail, they are discharged from their bail bonds.