1. ' Muhammad Latif Khan (29), Sub-Accountant in the Office of District Accounts Officer, Mianwali, was sent up by Police Station A.C.E. For trial for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, vide judgment, dated 2-2-1991, convicted and sentenced him under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of P.C.A., to nine months' R.I. With a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default, 3 months' R.I. Convict has appealed.
2. This judgment shall dispose of the appeal.
3. ' Prosecution story in brief as unfolded in F.I.R. Exh.P.A., lodged by Abdullah Khan, on 5-12-1988, was to the effect that on 12-5-1988, he retired from service and applied in the Accounts Office for the completion of his pension papers. He approached the District Accounts Officer who demanded Rs,800 as illegal gratification. The first informant, however, paid him Rs,700. On 30-11-1988 after receivin illegal gratification he asked him to contact Muhammad Latif Khan appellant who would prepare his papers. When the first informant contacted him he demanded Rs,150 as illegal gratification. He had promised to pay the amount on 5-12-1988. He did not wish to pay illegal gratification, therefore, the present case.
4. ' Malik Tila Muhammad, P.W.3, after recording F.I.R. Exh.P.A., gave application to D.C. For deputing a Magistrate to supervise the raid. Muhammad Aslam Arshad, P.W.2, M.I.C., was duly deputed for supervising raid. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement Exh.P.B. Of the complainant and noted down the serial numbers of the currency notes. Thereafter a raiding party was constituted.
5. The complainant was sent inside the Office of District Accounts Officer. Khurshid Alam, Constable P.W. Was posted in the Verandah to watch. After paying the money complainant gave a signal to Khurshid Alam, Constable who accordingly signalled the raiding party which came and recovered Rs,150 from the waist coat of the appellant. On comparison the notes were the same that had been given to the complainant. The notes were secured vide memo.
6. ' Exh.P.C. Thereafter the raiding Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant as well as of the appellant. After necessary investigation challan was submitted in Court.
7. ' The prosecution in support of its case produced 3 witnesses in all. P.W.1, Abdullah Khan, had supported the version given in the F.I.R. P.W.2 Muhammad Aslam Arshad, M.I.C., gave a detailed account of the raid and recovery of currency notes from the appellant. He, however, admitted that he neither saw the money changing hand nor heard the conversation. P.W.3 Malik Tilla Muhammad, C.O./A.C.E., corroborated the statement of the raiding Magistrate. Khurshid Alam P.W.4, corroborated the version and stated that on receiving the signal he informed the raiding party.
8. ' At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence appellant was examined without oath wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He further stated that on the fateful day he had already prepared pension papers and handed over to the complainant. Thereafter there was no occasion for him to receive illegal gratification. He further stated that he had gone to offer prayer and left his waist-coat hanging on the chair. When he came back the raiding party recovered currency notes from his pocket which were put by the complainant in his absence. He also produced a witness in his defence. Muhammad Hussain, Tehsildar, D.W.1 stated that he held an inquiry under the orders of District Accounts Officer, Mianwali, and during inquiry he recorded the statement of the complainant.
9. ' It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that case against the appellant is not proved at all. Submitted that as far as Abdullah Khan, P.W.1, is concerned, he is not worth reliance at all because he is a decoy witness. Even otherwise at the time of raid pension papers had already been completed and handed over to him and in such circumstances there was no occasion for receiving illegal gratification. Argued that the Magistrate and the Inspector neither heard the conversation nor saw the money changing hand therefore their evidence is of no use to the prosecution. Argued that an inquiry was conducted wherein the complainant had made a statement before the Inquiry Officer wherein he admitted that he had already received pension papers. He had further stated that he had tried to give illegal gratification to the appellant number of times but he refused to accept the same. He had further stated that the raiding Magistrate had asked him to make the raid successful, therefore, he put the same money in the waist-coat of the appellant which was hanging on the chair. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. As far as the statement of Magistrate and of the Inspector are concerned, they may not be of much help to the prosecution because none of them saw the money changing hand nor heard the conversation.
10. Their evidence is only to the fact that tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellant. As far as Abdullah Khan P.W.1 is concerned he had given a detailed account of the occurrence in the manner in which illegal gratification was passed on to the appellant. He was duly confronted with the statement made before the Inquiry Officer wherein he had given a different version altogether. In cross-examination he had further admitted before the trial Court that the Magistrate had ordered him to make the raid successful. This statement of the witness corroborates his earlier statement made before the Inquiry Officer. In any case, the witness has been making contradictory statements and, thereby, has discredited himself to an extent that no reliance on his statements can be placed. Even otherwise, at the time of raid learned Magistrate did recover duly sanctioned pension papers from the possession of Abdullah Khan complainant This fact further corroborates the defence version that pension papers after completion had already been handed over to the complainant.
4. For what has been discussed above it would not be safe to rely upon corroborated statement of the complainant. Therefore, giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.