1. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.- This judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 224/89 and 244/89.
2. Muhammad Ali Sub-Inspector and Ahmad Hassan Police Constable were sent up to face the trial before the Special Judge. Anti-Corruption, Lahore for the charge u/s 161 PPC read with Section 6(2> PCA 1947. The learned Special Judge found the accused guilty u/s 161 PPC and convicted them awarding the sentence of R.I. For four months each with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. For two months. Vide judgment dated 20.3.1989
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that on 29.6.1986 at about 9.10. a.m. Muhammad Ali Sub-Inspector with three Constables of Police Station Nawankot, Lahore raided the house of Shahid Javaid first informant. Muhammad Ali S.I. Took into custody Asad Javaid and Khalid Javaid two brothers of the complainant alongwith an amount of Rs. 25000/- 178 Cassettes and a T.V. On coming to know about it the complainant in the evening of 29.6.1986 approached Muhammad Ali S.I. Who made him also sit in the Police Station with his brothers. Thereafter the mother of the complainant got release the complainant from the custody of Muhammad Ali S.I.
3. After giving him Rs. 300/- and on the next day Muhammad Ah S.I. Also released Asad Javaid after getting Rs. 200/-. Khalid Javaid fell ill due to torture by appellants and was dropped at home by some Police Officials. Later on when the complainant went to Police Station to collect the Cassette and T.V. Etc from Muhammad Ali S.I. He demanded Rs. 2000/- for return of the articles. The first informant could not arrange this amount and at about 6 p.m. He alongwith his mother again went to the police station where he met Ahmad Hassan Police Constable who demanded Rs. 500/- for let urn of his articles. Statement of complainant Shahid Javaid Ex. Pwl/1 was recorded by Jang Bahadur Inspector Special Branch Pw.5 who moved an application Ex.PW. 2/l for conducting raid. A raiding party was arranged who conducted raid and recovered currency note P 170 to P 174 handed over to Ahmad Hassan accused by Shahid Javaid PW. 1 which were taken into possession vide memo. Ex. P. Thereafter the T.V. Alongwith 178 Cassettes Ex.PI to Ex. P 179 were taken into possession from the room of Muhammad Ali accused and were secured through memo Ex.PW. 2/3. The roznamcha and Register No. 19 of the Police Station was also secured through memo Ex.PW. 5/1 After completing the investigation the accused were challaned to face the trial.
4. The prosecution produced five witnesses in all in support of its case. PW.1 Shahid Javaid complainant who stated that Ahmad Hassan accused demanded Rs. 500/- for return of his articles which matter was reported to the Anti corruption Police and as a result thereof on 7.8.1986 after completing the formalities raid was conducted. He stated that he met Haji Muhammad Ali S.I.
5. Appellant in the Police Station and informed him that he has brought the money who directed him to handover the same to Ahmad Hassan and therefore the currency notes of Rs. 500/- were delivered to Ahmad Hassan appellant who on noticing raiding party threw the currency notes on the ground, which were taken into possession and the accused was arrested. The raiding party thereafter went to the room of Muhammad Ali appellant fromwhere TV with Cassettes was taken into possession. The witness in his statement Ex.PW 1/2 stated that Ahmad Hussain appellant demanded Rs 500/- and not by Muhammad Ali. PW2 stated that the complainant passed on money to Ahmad Hassan appellant within the site of the members of the raiding party who was still keeping it in his hand when on the introduction of raiding party he threw the currency notes on the ground which were taken into possession and thereafter the raiding party went to the mom of Muhammad Ali S.I. And took into possession T.V. And Cassettes from his room. He stated that the raiding party was at a distance of about 10 feets from appellant when tainted money was passed on to Ahmad Hassan appellant at the place at a distance of 25 feet from the outer gate. He however states that he could not understand the conversation between Ahmad Hassan appellant and the complainant and that the illegal gratification was not demanded within his hearing. PW.3 Mst. Khurshid Begum mot her of the complainant has deposed regarding the illegal custody of her son and taking away TV and Cassettes by the accused. PW.4 Asad Javaid brother of complainant corroborated the statement of PW.3 het mother. PW. Fijs J hang Bahadur Inspector who has initiated the proceedings on the complaint of PW 1 and after completing the investigation challaned the accused. Muhammad Khan DSP Haroonbad appeared as CW 1 who deposed that complainant handed over the tainted money to Ahmad Hassan appellant in the courtyard of the Police Station and that Muhammad Ali S.I. Was not present in the police station at the relevant time.
6. The appellants in their statement under section 342 Cr.P.C, denied the charge and produced Muhammad Aslam and Haji Muhammad Younas as DWs who deposed with regard to the theft case in which TV and cassettes were taken into possession and Sajid and Khalid were taken into custody as suspected.
7. Learned counsel for the Ahmad Hassan appellant contends that no conversation between the accused and complainant was heard by PWs and that passing of tainted money without hearing the conversation is of no significance. He further contends that PWs have made contradictory statements which created dent in the prosecution case. The learned counsel for Muhammad Ali appellant submits that according to the prosecution case, the tainted money was demanded by Ahmad Hassan accused and was delivered to him. There is no evidence to corroborate the statement of PW.1 to the effect that Muhammad Ali appellant demanded Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification on that the amount in question was handed over to Ahmad Hassan appellant on his behalf.
8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and perused the record carefully. The complainant in the FIR lodged with Anti Corruption Police Station stated that Muhammad Ali SI accused appellant demanded Rs. 2000/- for return of T.V. And Cassettes whereas Ahmad Hassan accused appellant demanded Rs. 500/- for arranging the return of these articles. At __ the trial he made improvement stating that the amount of Rs. 500/- the bribe j, money was delivered to Ahmad Hassan appellant on behalf of Muhammad Ali on his direction. PW2 raiding Magistrate and other members of the raiding party went to the room of Muhammad Ali appellant after recovery of currency note from Ahmad Hassan accused appellant and took into possession T.V. And Cassettes.
9. Muhammad Ali accused did not deny taking into possession of these articles from the house of complainant. From the evidence on record it looks that complainant on failure to get back the TV and cassettes from Muhammad Ali appellant, sought help of Ahmad Hassan appellant who demanded Rs. 500/- not for Muhammad Ali appellant but for himself on the pretext of getting the articles returned to the complainant. The demand of Muhammad Ali appellant was Rs. 2000/- and not Rs. 500/- and that too not through Ahmad Hassan. It is not plausible that Muhammad Ali appellant demanded illegal gratification from the complainant himself but directed him to make payment to Ahmad Hassan appellant. Admittedly the payment was made in the courtyard of the police station and not near the room or office of Muhammad Ali appellant which fact goes to prove that it was an affair between the complainant and Ahmad Hassan appellant and not Muhammad Ali. The evidence does not disclose the essential ingredience of commission of offence by Muhammad Ali as there is no evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe by Muhammad Ali. The amount of tainted money was demanded and accepted by Ahmad Hassan appellant how in his statement before the Magistrate after the raid has not denied the receiving of the money but took the plea that he received money on behalf of Muhammad Ali appellant. The non entry of T.V. And Cassettes in roznamcha is not an evidence of demand of bribe' money. The sole statement of PW 1 an interested '*"witness having grievance against Muhammad Ali appellant is not enough to make basis for conviction. PW1 in fact did not level allegation against Muhammad Ali appellant in the complaint by making improvements at trial he made an attempt to also involve him and therefore the case against Muhammad Ali appellant is not free from doubt. However, the case of Ahmad Hassan appellant is distinguishable. The direct evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification against him is available on the record. The complainant had no other reason to trap him on false pretext. The prosecution has successfully proved the case against Ahmad Hassan beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore his appeal to him is maintained. He is on bail and shall be arrested to serve out the unexpired portion of his sentence. The charge against Muhammad Ali appellant has not been proved for want of evidence, therefore his appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentence awarded to him is set aside and he is acquitted from the charge giving him benefit of doubt He is on bail, his bail bonds shall be discharged.