GHULAM SARWAR SHAIKH, J.- In case No. 50 of 1995, appellant namely, Aurangzeb, was tried by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala, found and adjudged guilty of an offence under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. For a period of two years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. For another term of six months. It was further directed that out of amount to fine, if recovered, and realised, a sum of Rs.6250/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant namely, Muhammad Khalid Sheikh.
2. At the relevant time, appellant was admittedly an "ASI" of Police Station Saddar Mandi Baha-ud- Din. Allegedly, he impersonated himself as Asghar Ali, A.S.I.-of C.I.A. Staff Kathiala Sheikhan and deprived the complainant of cash to the tune of Rs.6250/- and a Cartoon-containing Ammonium Chloride Syrup worth Rs.1000/- in the garb of raid for "spurious Medicine" and threats of launching criminal proceedings against him thereby.
3. Subsequent inquiries by complainant, however, revealed and surfaced the appellant as to aforesaid "ASI" and responsible for ugly act. After confirmation of his identity complaint Ex.PA was submitted to Director Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab, Lahore. Same, alongwith letter Ex.PC was received by PW. 3 Muhammad Rafiq Shah, CO/ACE Gujrat. Upon final report vide letter Ex.PD, registration of case was ordered on 25.8.1994 and formal FIR Ex.PE was drawn/recorded. Necessary sanction for prosecution was accorded in terms of Ex.PF.
4. To substantiate the allegations and prove its case, as many as for witnesses, were examined by the prosecution. PW.1, Muhammad Khalid Sheikh, re-iterated the contents of complaint Ex.PA made on 12.6.1993, about 12 days after the incident alleged to have occurred on 31.5.1993. PW2, Muhammad Arshad, spoke in line of the complainant. PW. 3, Muhammad Rafiq Shah is C.O/ACE Gujrat who recorded formal FIR Ex.PE. PW4, Mozaffar Hussain, located the accused on the basis of features disclosed to him by the complainant.
5. In his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances figuring against him in the prosecution evidence and raised the plea of false implication. In his defence, he examined a solitary witness namely Abdul Ghani. However, he opted, not to appear as his own witness in disproof of allegations as envisaged by the provisions embodied in Section 340(2) Cr.P.C.
6. Terming the delay in reporting the matter as not to be fatal and believing statement of PW. 1, the complainant, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated and stated above by judgment dated 1.4.1996.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has lambasted the verdict with the assertions that he same is based on solitary statement of complainant Muhammad Khalid PW. 1, no person in whose presence alleged incident had taken place was cited witness in the complaint and bare statement of complainant cannot be believed and given credence as Kashif was given up as having been won over. Delay of 12 days in reporting the matter has been termed to be serious, inordinate and unexplained so as to impair the prosecution case beyond repair.
8. Conversely, learned Counsel representing the State has remarked that the complainant had neither any enmity with the appellant nor any cause for his false implication. Also it has been maintained that the delay in making the complaint stands duly explained as accused was to be, located and his identity, as such, was to be confirmed.
9. Seemingly fauxpas was committed while appreciating prosecution evidence. By now it is settled that the testimony of a person, high soever, he may be, must be taken with grain of salt so to say, that it cannot be treated as "gospel truth" unless corroborated by independent reliable evidence.
Learned trial Judge traversed on the periphery, rather, confined the whole exercise to a profile and did not bother to dive deep to sift grain from chaff and kenal from husk, particularly when Muhammad Arshad PW2 was found to have been introduced subsequently and no significance could be attached to his testimony. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant PW2 and PW4 were not even present when the appellant allegedly deprived the complainant of cash and drugs. Learned trial Judge seems to have fallen in ignoration elenchi while treating the deposition of PW.1 as apoplectically as if he spoke as an oracle. The accused also deserved the same solemnity in speech vis-a-vis the complainant, who, should have been taken at par with the accused and their versions should have been juxta-posed in its true perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out various discrepancies in the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4, which, cut very root of prosecution case, as scrupulously conceded by learned counsel representing the State.
10. Be that as it may, these glaring discrepancies were sufficient to discard the veracity of PW.1 Muhammad Khalid Sheikh (complainant) what to speak of borrowing "circumstantial corroboration". Saddle must be put on right horse, but, unfortunately, process of bringing home the guilt was evaluated with the help of those witnesses, who, prevaricated with impunity. In nut-shell, solitary statement of the complainant, without independent corroboration, could not afford valid basis for the conviction, now sought to be impeached and set at naught. Verdict dated 1.4.1996 is highly hypothetical and conjectural.
11. Un-doubtedly it is not a raid case. Delay in reporting the matter is also of considerable effect and significance. Very happening of incident in a swarmed bazar in broad day light in such a crude fashion/manner is palpably open to grave doubts. Thus prosecution case is perfunctory on various counts.
12. Matter is liable to be analysed from entirely a different angle, which, however, has not been agitated. Very registration of the case is the out-come of naked and patent legal infirmity.
Aggrieved could conveniently knock at the door of higher police hierarchy for redressal of his grievances. Without availing remedy, and observance of prescribed procedure he chose to put the "Cart before Horse". As such registration of a criminal case bemoaned loudly over contrivance apparently devised. If such practice is allowed to prevail, then, every employee would be prone to criminal action on flimsy allegations.
13. As a necessary corollary, conviction and sentence of the appellant, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 1.4.1996 is not only laconic, but also, replete with legal infirmities. Hence, the same is un-sustainable. Resultantly, appeal is accepted, conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Amount of fine, if realised, shall be refunded.
14. Appellant is on bail and is accordingly absolved of all his liabilities to the bail bonds submitted/furnished by him.