' Shortly stated the facts are that a case under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against the respondent, Ghulam Shabbir at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore on 1-10-1987 on the statement of Muhammad Saleem Jamal for having taken illegal gratification from him. The respondent is alleged to have demanded the payment of a sum of Rs,500 as illegal gratification to him in lieu of typing a stay order which was dictated to him by Mr. Muhammad Masood Akhtar, learned Additional District Judge, Lahore in the case of the complainant. According to the complainant, a sum of Rs,50 was paid to the respondent as illegal gratification: The respondent was tried by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai, Advocate, P.W.1, Rana Ilam Din, Advocate P.W.2, Muhammad Saleem Jamal, P.W.3, Zamin Abbas, P.W.4, Masood Akhtar Khan, Additional District Judge, P.W.5 and Muhammad Ameer Malik P.W.6. In turn, the respondent while making a detailed statement under section 342, Cr.P.C.
Denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded his ignorance. The learned Special Judge vide his judgment, dated 15-12-1988 acquitted the respondent on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case against him. The learned Judge held that no recovery of bribe money was effected from the appellant although he was apprehended at the spot by the learned Judge immediately after the occurrence. This appeal has been instituted by the State against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent. Learned Assistant Advocate-General contends that there is sufficient evidence on the record to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. He argues that there is no motive to falsely implicate the respondent. He also states that the judgment of acquittal is based on surmises inasmuch as it was not supported by any evidence available on the record. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment of acquittal by adopting the reasons given by the learned Special Judge.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with care. Admittedly, Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai P.W.1, an eye-witness did not support the prosecution case. Similarly Rana Ilam Din, Advocate deposed that nothing was paid by the complainant to the appellant in his presence. It may also be observed that on the day of occurrence the complainant moved an application for initiating contempt proceedings but strange enough that nothing about the illegal gratification was mentioned in the said application.
This would also show that no incident as alleged by the prosecution happened on the day of occurrence. It is well-settled that no interference is called for in case like the one in hand unless it is shown that the judgment of acquittal is perverse or contrary to record. Learned Law Officer has wholly failed to show 'that some necessary piece of evidence was ignored or was misread to defeat the ends of justice. The acquittal of the respondent appears to be proper and just on the face of the record. The impugned judgment definitely discloses weighty reasons which in my view were sufficient for the acquittal of the respondent from the charge levelled against him. Even in such a situation, learned Law Officer argued the appeal in a halfhearted manner. Eye-witness account having been given in this case does create distrust in mind that the story of prosecution was more conjectural than real. This being so, respectfully following the dictum laid down in Bashir Ahmad v. Muhammad Azam PLD 1969 SC 469, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The respondent shall be deemed to have been acquitted honourably.