' RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is an appeal by Muhammad Shafi appellanf against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 22-5-1989 dismissing his revision petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30-9-1971 on the report of Muhammad Shall, appellant, a case was registered with FIA, Lahore, under sections 161, 162, 163 and 164, P.P.C., read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against Muhammad Younus, respondent No,1, and an absconder, namely, Dr. Naseer A. Sheikh, who was at the relevant time serving as Director-General Health, Government of Pakistan. The case of the appeallant was that he was working as Manager of Eastern Trade and Distribution Company, McLeod Road Branch, Lahore, and also as Manager, Nabi Qasim Industries, Karachi. Faqir Muhammad P.W. 4 was the Managing Director of the Nabi Qasim Industries. Faqir Muhammad P.W. 4 came to Lahore on 29-6-1977 and informed the appellant that in spite of his best efforts, he had not been able to obtain drug manufacturing licence for Nabi Qasim Industries, Karachi, from Dr. Naseer A. Sheikh, the absconding accused, but Muhammad Younus, respondent No,1, had assured him that he would get him the licence provided he paid Rs, 100,000 as bribe for Dr. Naseer A. Sheikh, Faqir Muhammad P.W.4 further asked the appellant to arrange Rs,90,000, as he had with him only Rs,10,000. The appellant contacted Abdul Majid P.W.S, Managing Director of the Eastern Trade and Distribution Company, Karachi, to arrange the requisite amount. Abdul Majid P.W. 5 accordingly sent the appellant a crossed cheque Exh. P.W.
7/2 for Rs,40,000 and a bank draft Exh. P.W. 7/1 for Rs,50,000 drawn on the Muslim Commercial Bank, Vault Branch, Lahore. The appellant and Faqir Muhammad P.W. 4 encashed the cheque and the draft on 4-7-1977. They approached Muhammad Younus, respondent No,1 and handed over to him at his shop the amount of Rs,100,000 in a brief-case. The respondent assured them that he had already talked to Dr. Naseer A. Sheikh and he would issue the requisite licence for Nabi Qasim Industries, Karachi. After investigation, a challan was submitted against Muhammad Younus respondents, showing Dr. Naseer A. Sheikh as an absconder. The respondent was charged under section 162, P.P.C., to which he pleaded not guilty.
3. The prosecution in support of its case examined a number of witnesses. In between i.e, on 6-10- 1981, an application was moved on behalf of Muhammad Younus respondent under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. For the quashment of the case, however, the application was kept pending. The prosecution closed its evidence on 31-1-1982, whereafter the trial Court took up the said application for consideration and, after perusing the evidence on the record and hearing the arguments, quashed the case by its order 13-3-1982; with a direction that the record would not be destroyed till Dr. Naseer A. Sheikh, the absconding accused, was arrested and put to trial.
4. Being aggrieved by the above judgment, the appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 22-5-1989.
5. Leave was granted in this case to examine the validity of the impugned order.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent and the State and have perused the record. Both the learned trial Judge and the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court found that there was discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses with regard to cheque Exh. P.W. 7/3 drawn by Muhammad Shaft who received the sum of Rs,90,000 for delivery to Faqir Muhammad P.W.4, Muhammad Shafi appellant in his evidence stated that he withdrew the amount of Rs,90,000 from the Muslim Commercial Bank .Ltd, Vault Branch, Lahore, on the basis of cheque Exh. P.W. 7/3 whereas Muhammad Afzal P.W.7 stated that the said cheque was drawn from his bank by one M.H. Khan, the proprietor of M/s. Asian Commercial Co., Lahore, as final payee, on the basis of a cheque drawn on his bank by the appellant and endorsed by him for payment to M/s. Asian Commercial Co., Lahore. On behalf of the appellant it is submitted that this cheque was produced at a very late stage by Muhammad Afzal P.W. 7, the cashier of the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. And that originally it did not bear any endorsement made by him in favour of M/s. Asian Commercial Co., and that the said endorsement with the so-called signatures of M.H.
Khan, proprietor were introduced surreptitiously into the cheque in order to defeat the appellant's case. It is further submitted that during his examination in Court the endorsement was not put to him in order to seek his explanation. The argument of the learned counsel cannot be straightway accepted as valid. He in any case was not in charge of the case, which was with the prosecution branch. The appellant also did not file any application with the Special Judge (Central), Lahore, to explain the endorsement after the evidence of . Muhammad Afzal P.W.7 was recorded. There is nothing on the record to show that the investigating officer or the Cashier of the Bank had any particular reason to cause false endorsement to be made on the cheque. Considering that there appeared to be some doubt as to whether the appellant had secured Rs,90,000 from the Bank, as alleged, the two Courts. Gave the benefit of doubt to the respondent, which action cannot be stated to be illogical or perverse. What stands out a mile is that the evidence ex facie does not show that any of the prosecution witnesses had ever discussed the said matter with Dr. Naseer A.
Sheikh, the absconding accused, or had received his affirmation or confirmation that he would issue the licence, subject to bribe or favour being paid or shown to Muhammad Younus respondent. In these cirumstances, the question whether a prima facie case under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, read with sections 161-164, P.P.C., stood made out against Dr. Naseer A. Sheikh, the absconding accused, would arise, raising the further question whether trial against Muhammad Younus respondent No,1 by the Special Judge (Central), Anti-Corruption, Lahore, was not without jurisdiction. Without therefore going into the question whether the action of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Central), in taking up the application of Muhammad Younus respondent under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., when the whole of the prosecution evidence had already been recorded, was I legal and proper, we consider that this case does not call for any interference.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we would dismiss this appeal.