KHALID PAUL KHWAJA, J.- This is an appeal against the order dated 16.5.1990 whereby the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Faisalabad convicted Muhammad Rafique appellant under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 161 PPC and sentenced him to nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a i.e of Rs.5000/- or in default to undergo a further term of three months' rigorous imprisonment.
2. The relevant facts which gave rise to the present appeal are that in April, 1988 Muhammad Rafique appellant was working as a Clerk in the Faisalabad Development Authority at Faisalabad.
On 26.4.1988 Abdul Rashid PW-1, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, informed Sub- Inspector Muhammad Yasin (PW.3) who was serving in the F.I.A Faisalabad that the appellant was demanding illegal gratification from him. According to the complainant he had applied for the supply of the copies of some documents and the appellant who was dealing with the case demanded Rs.100/- from him as illegal gratification for doing the needful. The Sub-Inspector, thereafter, made a written request Exh. P.F before the A.D.C (G) City to depute a Magistrate to supervise the raid. On the same day the A.D.C. (G) directed A.C City to depute a Magistrate in this regard. Accordingly, PW.2 Irshad Ahmad Busal Magistrate 1st Class was directed to conduct the raid, who recorded the statement of the complainant Exh.P.A. Thereafter, the complainant produced a hundred rupee currency note before the Sub-Inspector who noted down its number vide memo Exh.P.B and after conducting a personal search of the complainant gave back the said note to him. A raiding party was formed which consisted of the aforesaid Magistrate, Muhammad Yasin Sub-Inspector, Muhammad Ishaque constable and the complainant. The said party then reached the office of the F.DA. The complainant was sent in while the other members of the party stood out in the deorhi of the said office. Later on the complainant gave the appointed signal, whereupon the raiding party headed by the Magistrate entered the office of the appellant. During his personal search the tainted currency note Exh.P.I was recovered from the right side pocket of his shirt which was taken into possession. The Magistrate then recorded the statement of the appellant Exh. P.E. According to the said statement the complainant had applied for the supply of some photostat copies of documents relating to the allotment of Plot No.735/K (iulistan Colony, Faisalabad and he under the orders of the Director General, F.D.A was dealing with the case. The complainant deposited Rs.50/- in the State Bank as i.e for the supply of the said copies but as the amount was insufficient he had asked the complainant to deposit more money. The appellant further stated that on the eventful day the complainant had forcibly put the tainted currency note in his pocket which was later on recovered from him by the Magistrate and that he had kept quiet after the currency note was put in his pocket. He maintained that he was innocent and had never intended to receive illegal gratification. After the said statement he was arrested. Muhammad Yasin Sub- Inspector drafted a complaint which was sent to the Police Station Anti- Corruption Establishment, Faisalabad where formal FIR Exh.PJ was registered. After the completion of the investigation which was conducted by Inspector Saadullah Khan PW.4 the appellant was challaned. The requisite sanction for prosecution was also obtained vide order Exh.P.H.
3. The appellant was formally charged under Section 161 PPC read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined four witnesses in support of its case namely PW.1 Abdul Rashid complainant, PW.2 Irshad Ahmad Busal, Magistrate, PW.3 Sub-Inspector Muhammad Yasin, PW.4 Inspector Saadullah Khan the investigating officer and PW.5 Habib Ullah AS1 who recorded the formal FIR.
5. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the statement of the appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.C was recorded. Therein he denied that the complainant had ever contacted him for the supply of copies of documents and that he had demanded any illegal gratification from him. He further denied that on 26.4.1988 he had again demanded illegal gratification from the complainant and had received Rs.100/- from him as bribe. He also denied that the tainted currency note was recovered from his possession. He further denied having made statement Exh.P.E before the Raiding Magistrate and maintained that the said statement was written in his absence and the Magistrate had only obtained his signature on it. He maintained that he had been falsely implicated in the present case because he had given legal opinion against the complainant who was annoyed with him over it.
6. The appellant also made a statement on oath as DW1.
7. After considering the evidence on record the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty and consequently convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Feeling aggrieved he had come up in appeal.
8. It is an admitted fact that neither the Raiding Magistrate nor the accompanying Sub-inspector had seen the passing of the tainted currency note from the complainant to the appellant and nor did they hear any conversation between the two at the relevant time. In these circumstances, the statements of the Raiding Magistrate Irshad Ahmad Busal PW.2 and Sub-Inspector Muhammad Yasin PWA are of no help to the prosecution for from said statements the culpability of the appellant is not established. In support of this view Zaheer Hussain Shah Vs The State [1974 P.Cr.L.J Note 36 (Lahore), Muhammad Siddique Vs. The State [1975 Criminal Cases (Lahore) 245 and Muhammad Ramzan Vs. The S ate 1976 P.Cr.L.J 273 (Lahore) may be cited.
9. A pertinent question arises if the appellant could be held guilty on the basis of the solitary- statement of the complainant coupled with the alleged recovery of the taiIted currency note from the appellant. A decoy witness in such cases has never been considered to be a reliable witness for the conviction of an accused. The courts always look for corroboration from independent source. In the present case unfortunately, and luckily for the appellant, such corroboration is not available on record. The statement of the appellant (Exh.P.E) at the time of the raid also does not help the prosecution case. This statement is to be taken into consideration as a whole and it would not be fair to pick and choose sentences from it. From the said statement it is clear that the appellant did not admit having received the tainted currency note as illegal gratification. He has clearly stated that the complainant had forcibly put the said currency note in his pocket. The fact that the appellant had willingly accepted the tainted currency note or the same had been forcibly put into his pocket could be proved through evidence. It had already been 'pointed out that the testimonies of the Raiding Magistrate and the accompanying Sub-Inspector are silent on this subject and therefore, from the said statement it could not be said that the appellant accepted the tainted currency note willingly as illegal gratification. The complainant in his statement before the learned trial court does state that the appellant had accepted the currency note from him and had put it in his pocket but as stated earlier this statement which does not get any independent corroboration is grossly insufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt the benefit of which would go to the appellant. Consequently giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant I accept this appeal, set aside his conviction and sentence and acquit him. He is on bail. He shall be discharged from his bail bonds.