MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.- Briefly stated the tacts of the case are that tin appellant was tried for an offence under section 17/22 ol the Emigration Ordinance. |97'> in the Court of the Special Judge (Central) Lahore in case FIR No. 253 dated 19.11.1985 P.S. FIA, Passport Cell, Lahore. She was convicted, ln the trial court under section 22 of the Ordinance and sentenced to R.I for o months with a fine of Rs. 40,(XX)/- or in default of payment to undergo R.I lor I month. Out of the amount of fine, a sum of Rs.18,000/- each was ordered to lx paid to Arif and Saleern PWs.
2. According to the prosecution story in the year 1984, the appellant received sum of Rs. 18,000/- each from Mst. Bhagan, Anwar and Saleern alongwith their passports and identity cards on the pretext of sending them abroad for employment. She subsequently returned the passports and identity cards to the above referred persons but did not pay back the amounts paid by them. The case was investigated into by Rashid Ahmad Tabassam DSP. Nothing was recovered from the appellant during the investigation.
3. In support of its case, prosecution produced Mst. Bhagan PW-1. Muhammad Arif PW-2 Nisar Ahmad PW-3, Muhammad Arif PW-4 and Rashid Ahmad Tabassam DSP/I.O PW-5. When examined u/s 342 Cr.P.C the appellant denied the allegation, made against her. She stated that one Boota had demanded hand of her daughter in marriage (for his son) but she refused the proposal whereupon she was maliciously roped in the present ease at the instance of Boota.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the stale. There is no cogent material on the record to prove that the disputed amount was paid to the appellant. The appellant never pursuaded PWs to pay money or passport to her on the pretext of sending them abroad for employment. Mst. Bhagan PW-1 stated that she had learnt from Boota that the appellant had some visas with her for employment in Saudia Arabia and she alongwith Muhammad Arif and Boota went to her house. She further alleged that the appellant received sum of Rs.18,000/- from her for providing visa to her son Muhammad Arif. She also got passport and identity card of her son but did not send him to Saudia Arabia. She further stated that the passport and identity card of Muhammad Arif were returned by the appellant. Muhammad Saleern PW-2 stated that he gave Rs.
18,000/- along with passport and identity card to Mst. Bhagan and that she passed on the same to the appellant. Nisar Ahmad PW-3 stated that his cousin Muhammad Anwar had paid Rs. 18,000/- to Mst. Khurshid Bibi appellant. He admitted that he was not present at the time of the alleged payment. Muhammad Arif PW-4 stated that his mother had paid Rs. 18,000/- to the appellant. He also stated that he was not present at the time of payment of the money to the appellant. The above evidence does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the amount of Rs.18,000/- was paid to the appellant. The alleged amount was said to have been paid in the presence of Muhammad Boota who was not produced as a witness. His non-production can give rise to an inference adverse to the prosecution, moreso, when the appellant had pleaded that Muhammad Boota had demanded the hand of her(the appellant's) daughter for marriage with his son and on her refusal to accept the proposal she was maliciously involved in the case. It is also not believable that Mst.
Bhagan or for that matter, Muhammad Saleern and Muhammad Anwar would have paid a huge amount of Rs. 18,000/- each without obtaining a written receipt from the appellant Therefore, the allegation that the appellant received the above referred amounts from PW-3 on the pretext of sending Muhammad Arif etc abroad remains unsubstantiated. Moreover, there is nothing to show that the appellant had demanded any money from the PWs for sending them abroad for employment. The PWs claim to have gone to the appellant on their own accord. Thus the evidence on record does not make out a case against the appellant for commission of an offence u/s 22 of the Emigration Ordinance. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the appellant was falsely involved in the case at the instance of Muhammad Boota who wanted the hand of the appellant's daughter for his son.
2. For the fore-going discussion, I accept this appeal set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence and acquit her of the charge against her. She is present in the court on bail. Her bail/surety bonds shall stand discharged.