' The facts leading to the filing of this appeal by State against the judgment of Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Lahore, who acquitted respondent Zahoor Din, the then Inspector Joint Task Force, for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, are that one Muhammad Rashid lodged a report on 27-12-1986 with Police Station Anti-Corruption, Lahore with the allegation that he was resident of 24-Ittehad Colony, Lahore. Respondent Zahoor Din, who. Was Police Inspector, Joint Task Force, raided the said house and arrested Mazhar Hussain and another for dealing in narcotic. The complainant was also arrested on the pretext that he was also dealing in the same business. Complainant's brother-in-law Muhammad Ramzan, P.W.
Alongwith another person Mehmood Alam Khan got in touch with Zahoor Din who demanded Rs,10,000 for the release of the complainant. Rs,6,500 were paid at the spot, whereas the remaining amount was to be paid later. The complainant informed the authorities accordingly. They registered a case, raiding party was constituted and the respondent was arrested with tainted currency notes of Rs,1,000.
' After usual investigation, challan was submitted in the Court. Prosecution examined five witnesses in all. Thereafter, the respondent made a statement without oath and he also entered upon his defence on oath. He also examined defence witnesses. The learned trial Court gave the benefit of doubt and acquitted him. The State has appealed against his acquittal.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the State/appellant that the prosecution had established its case beyond doubt against the respondent, yet the trial Court extended benefit of doubt, which is not in consonance with the evidence led by the prosecution. Submitted that tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the respondent by a Magistrate, who by every standard was an independent person. Asserted that the explanation given by the respondent was neither convincing nor supported by evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent controverted the arguments of the other side and stated that the respondent at the time of raid had admitted having received Rs,1,000 from the complainant but gave an explanation under which the money was paid to him. Asserted that as far as the first charge of payment of Rs,6,500 is concerned, there is no evidence whatsoever, worth considering. Argued that as far as the second part of charge is concerned, a plausible explanation has been given by the respondent duly supported by defence witnesses, which include an Advocate of this Court as well.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant. As far as the first part of the charge is concerned, there is evidence of Muhammad Ramzan, brother-in-law of the complainant, and one Mehmood Alam Khan. Both were cross-examined at length. Mehmood Alam Khan had to admit his involvement in a number of cases, and there were convictions to his credit as well. He also admitted that he had filed complaints against the respondent and others. Muhammad Ramzan, P.W. Brother-in-law of the complainant admitted his friendship with Mehmood Alam Khan. In this view of the matter, I fully agree with the finding of the trial Court that the evidence is interested and cannot be relied upon.
' As far as the other part of the charge is concerned, learned Magistrate and Inspector Jang Bahadar both of them admitted that at the time of passing of currency notes no conversation with regard to the arrest of the respondent or showing any favour to him was made. As a matter of fact, they stated that without any conversation money was handed over to the respondent, who after counting the same put it in his pocket. The respondent at that stage, when apprehended, made a statement that he had advanced a loan to the complainant which was being repaid. Even at trial stage this was his consistent defence and in support of his defence he had produced his witnesses as well. An Advocate of this Court Mr. Muhammad Aqil Chughtai appeared as D.W.2. He also stated that in his presence respondent had demanded for the return of his money from the complainant and there was unpleasantness between them as well.
' Respondent had produced five defence witnesses in his support, who on oath had swom about the innocence of the respondent. If the prosecution story is kept in juxtaposition with the defence evidence, I feel the defence evidence becomes more plausible. There are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well. The Magistrate in cross-examination admitted that Mehmood Alam Khan was present with the complainant at the time of initiation of proceedings. Said Mehmood Alam denied his presence. In such circumstances, the chances of false involvement of the respondent cannot be ruled out.
' For what has been discussed above, I find cogent reasons have been given by the trial Court for extending benefit of doubt to the respondent. No exception to it can be taken. The appeal fails, which is, accordingly, dismissed.