' Riaz Ahmad petitioner being accused of case F.I.R. No,36, dated 3Q-7-1994 under sections 420, 468, 471, 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 has approached this Court for the grant of bail after refusal of the same by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that landowners of village Kamalpur Bajwa moved a complaint against the petitioner before Additional Director, Anti-Corruption. According to the contents of the complaint moved by Muhammad Sarwar, the allegations against the petitioner are that during consolidation he charged different amounts as an illegal gratification from 14 persons named in the complaint. In all, he received an illegal gratification of ' Rs,1,14,300 from 14 landowners.
Resultantly, a case was registered against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner. Contends that on the basis of same allegations, earlier a criminal case was registered vide F.I.R. No,97, dated 9-6-1993 with Police Station Phalora in which the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala and as such he cannot be vexed twice. He next contended that F.I.R. Has been lodged with a considerable delay casting doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story making the petitioner's case one of further inquiry. It was also submitted that there is no witness of the receipt of illegal gratification.
4. Learned counsel for the State half heartedly opposed the petition.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. It has been conceded by the learned counsel for the State assisted by Muhammad Asif Ansari, Consolidation Officer that regarding the same allegations with minor changes case F.I.R. No,97, dated 9-6-1993 was registered in which the petitioner has been acquitted. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is also there. There is general allegation of receipt of illegal gratification.
' The question whether the petitioner is guilty of the offences with which he stands charged shall be determined at the trial after recording of evidence. This being so, I am prima facie of the view that the petitioner's case is one of further inquiry. I accordingly admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Daska.