' This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal of Abdul Qayyum respondent passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala on 23-1-1989.
2. Abdul Qayyum accused/respondent while working as Patwari in Halqa Nagray Bhatti, Tehsil Gujranwala during the year 1983 being a public servant and by abusing his official position demanded and accepted Rs,3,500 from Muhammad Ishaq P.W.2 for preparation of Mutation No,237 of land situated in village Nagray Bhatti and deposited a sum of Rs,1,837 as fee for the said mutation and the remaining amount of. Rs,1,663 was brought to his own use and thereby he was charged under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for committing the above-said offence and was accordingly tried by the learned trial Court and was acquitted as mentioned above.
3. The prosecution case as disclosed briefly in the F.I.R. Exh.PA. Is that Rahim Bakhsh father of Bashir owned 16 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land in village Nagray Bhatti. Rahim Bakhsh, died and after his death inheritance mutation was done in the names of Bashir Ahmad, Rashidan and Sharifan.
Rashidan and Sharifan wanted the mutation of Hiba in favour of their brother Bashir. Bashir was living in Sindh so he requested Muhammad.Ishaq P.W. To show him the favour for doing this job.
Muhammad Ishaq. P.W.2 contacted Halqa Patwari who demanded Rs,3,500 as Goverment fee for doing the said job. He paid the amount in presence of Babu Khan to Abdul Qayyum. Abdul Qayyum respondent entered the Hiba mutation in favour of said Bashir. Abdul Qayyum respondent then was transferred and after one month of the transfer Sadiq Patwari the successor asked P.W.2 to appear before the Tehsildar and there he was informed that Abdul Qayyum had not deposited the Government fee. Therefore, Muhammad Ishaq paid Rs,2,000 to Sadiq Patwari at the instance of Arther Paul Kanungo for depositing as Government fee. Accordingly the Hiba mutation was sanctioned by the Tehsildar. P.W.2 then submitted an application Exh.PA. To the Director Anti- Corruption Lahore on the basis of which F.I.R. Exh.P.1 was recorded.
4. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of seven P.Ws. Closed the case of the prosecution and acquitted the respondent after giving him the benefit of doubt.
5. Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, the learned AA.-G. Appearing on behalf of the State contended that the trial Court closed the prosecution case without recording the evidence of material prosecution witnesses. It was also argued that neither the bailable or non-bailable warrants were issued and nor it adopted any coercive method for the service of prosecution witnesses, therefore, the Court has failed to appreciate the law on this point with the result that a grave miscarriage of justice has been done. It was also contended by him that the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and admittedly they have no enmity or grudge to falsely implicate the respondent in this case. It was argued that the discrepancies and contradictions mentioned by the trial Court are minor and were not fatal to the case of the prosecution. It was lastly submitted that the statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was not recorded so this act of the trial Court is against law.
6. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the prosecution in this case has utterly failed to constitute an offence against the respondent so he was rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court. He repelled the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the trial Court reasonably came to the conclusion that the respondent was not guilty and in the background of the circumstances of this case and the evidence analysed it was difficult to observe that the judgment of the trial Court was perverse or was a result of complete misreading of evidence or that the same was due to incompetence, stupidity or perversity of the trial Court which was done to produce a positive miscarriage of justice. He relied upon Yar Muhammad and 3 others v. The State 1992 SCMR 96 and Rab Rakhio and 2 others v. The State 1992 SCMR 793.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides and have also gone through the evidence of the prosecution with the able assistance of the learned Assistant Advocate-General and have reached to the conclusion that this Court cannot interfere with an acquittal merely because on reappraisal of the evidence, this Court comes to a conclusion different from that of the trial Court. This Court would only interfere if the conclusion reached by the trial Court acquitting the respondent is such that no reasonable person would conceivably reached. I find that the learned trial Court has recorded the evidence of all the material witnesses and he recorded the evidence of seven witnesses out of the eight P.Ws. Mentioned in the calendar of witnesses. More than dozen opportunities were given to the prosecution to produce Muhammad Aslam P.W. But they failed to do so and then the prosecution evidence was closed after giving the last opportunity.
8. I also find that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not such that no other conclusion can be made except that the respondent is guilty and there has been a complete misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice. Neither the judgment of the trial Court is perverse nor completely illegal as revealed on the perusal of the evidence. In such circumstances this Court would not exercise jurisdiction under section 417, Cr.P.C. It is a law laid down by their Lordships as mentioned above that the High Court in exei cising such jurisdiction is always slow unless it is felt that gross injustice has been done in the administration of criminal justice.
9. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the prosecution evidence has found the respondent not guilty of the offence and in view of the settled law that if trial Court has given a finding of absence of guilt, appellate Court would not impose its own finding of guilt, unless it is clearly shown on the record that the findings given by the trial Court are perverse, illegal and based on misreading. It has been an accepted principle in the annals of legal history that a person is deemed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty.
10. For the foregoing reasons this appeal has no force and is, therefore, dismissed.