I intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No.347 of 1993 and Criminal Appeal No.352 of 1993 by this single judgment as both the appeals are connected matters.
2. The appellants have filed these appeals against the judgment passed by the Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, whereby the learned Judge sentenced the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.5,000 each; in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. For six months each.
3. Briefly the facts giving rise to the prosecution are that Mehmood Ahmad Shehzad a resident of Siddiqia Colony, Badami Bagh, Lahore (complainant) had installed metered water connection in the newly-constructed house. In June, 1992 he received a bill of Rs.6,219. He went to the Office of WASA seeking the reduction of the bill which according to him was unjustified/inflated and in this connection met Shehzad Hussain and Mahmood Khan accused, the concerned officials of WASA.
They demanded Rs.1,000 to accomplish the job. He was reluctant to make payment of bribe and approached A.C.E. And consequently a raid was arranged which was supervised by Ch. Muhammad Siddiq, M.I.C., District Courts, Lahore. During the raid both the accused were caught red-handed with two currency notes of Rs.500 each and were consequently arrested and, F.I.R.
No.9, dated 27-8-1992 was got registered under section 161, P.P.C. Read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellants denied the allegation of taking illegal gratification and pleaded innocence.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel that the conversation between Mehmood Ahmad Shahzad complainant, and the two accused was not heard nor passing of the currency notes to the appellants was seen by the members of the raiding party. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the prosecution evidence in this behalf. It is, therefore, argued that the conviction is not sustainable. In support of the plea, learned counsel relies upon Hafiz Aziz Ahmad Khan v. State 1985 SCMR 1943, Muhammad Asghar v. State PLD 1991 Lah. 310, Muhammad Rafique v. State 1994 PCr.LJ 1937 and Doctor Arshad Ali v. State 1992 PCr.LJ 1666. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the contention of the learned counsel. The admitted position, therefore, is that the learned Magistrate P.W.3 and the inspector Anti-Corruption (P.W.2) did not hear the conversation between the bribe giver and the bribe takers. They also did not see when the money was passed on to the accused by the complainant. P. W.1 Ch. Muhammad Siddique, Magistrate 1st Class, in his cross- examination deposed that he did not hear the talk between the accused and the complainant nor had seen the passing of the amount. Similarly, Ayyaz Ahmad Bajwa, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Establishment admitted that he did not hear the talk between the complainant and the accused. In view of this admitted position, the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 cannot be made basis for conviction of the appellants. The only statement which remains in the field is that of the complainant. He is after all a decoy witness. His evidence is not sufficient to convict the appellants unless the same is corroborated by evidence of unimpeachable character. No such evidence was produced by the prosecution in this case. The case reported as Hafiz Aziz Ahmad Khan v. State 1985 SCMR 1943 is also referred. This being so, the statement of the complainant is excluded from the consideration.
5 The result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants. Both the appeals are, therefore, accepted. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged