' In Case No,196 of 1993, appellant namely Ghulam Farid was tried by learned Special Judge Anti- Corruption, Gujranwala, found and adjudged guilty of an offence under section 161, P.P.C. Read with 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 fine of Rs,10,000 and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. For a term of six months. It was further directed that out of amount of fine, if recovered and realized, a sum of Rs,8,000 shall be paid as compensation to the complainant Muhammad Riaz.
2. At the relevant time, appellant was admittedly "patwari" of Mauza Kot Nabi Shah, Tehsil Phalia of District Gujrat, where, Consolidation Operations were carried out in the year 1989-90. Charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs,8,000 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Riaz P.W.1 for giving better land to his father namely Muhammad Khan. It was refuted.
3. To substantiate the allegation embodied therein and prove its case as many as 5 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Muhammad Riaz, is complainant. P.W.2 and P.W.3 Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Arif, were persons before whom alleged illegal gratification had been demanded and passed on. P.W.4 Ashiq Hussain is a patwari, who, produced record pertaining to consolidation proceedings, copies whereof find a mention on file as Exh.PB to Exh.PD and P.W.5 Muhammad Rafiq Shah is Investigating Officer who, recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.PF on the basis of complainant Exh.PA in the light of order Exh.PE; recorded statements of witnesses, secured copies of relevant record, obtained sanction order Exh.PG and submitted challan.
4. 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. He explained that as he could not oblige the complainant, who, desired to get land from Shamlaat Deh, he was falsely involved in this case. No evidence in defence was, however, led by him.
5. Terming the delay in reporting the matter as not to be fatal and believing statements of P.W.1 to P.W.3, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated and stated above vide judgment dated 21-12-1993.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that delay of not less than three years in lodging F.I.R. Cuts very root of prosecution case. According to him, non-production of complainant's father Muhammad Khan, who, allegedly arranged the money as also for whose benefit all arrangements had been sorted out and that of Akbar Shah in whose "Baithak" entire show had been staged, casts a cluster of doubt upon prosecution case. Pointing out sanction order Exh.PG as to be undated, no recovery having been effected from appellant, no time, date, month and even year of alleged payment of money having been mentioned by either complainant or any of P.Ws.
Chain of discrepancies on various points and purpose of illegal gratification in particular; it has been canvassed that benefit of doubt, how, slight it may be, has to be to accused. Asserting that prosecution story does not find corroboration from evidence adduced on record, learned counsel for the appellant has further remarked that the case is patently of such a nature to which the provisions of section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Should have been extended. In support of the arguments, reliance has been placed upon Saleh Muhammad v. The State (1988 PCr.LJ 653).
7. Conversely, learned counsel representing the State has maintained that due sanction had been obtained from the Commissioner for proceeding against the appellant on specific and distinct charge and the conviction and sentence neither suffer from any infirmity nor can be taken to the perfunctory any way. Also it has been impressed that the same are duly warranted by date and material on record.
8. I have given my earnest consideration to respective contentions and scanned the record.
9. It is pertinent to note that very factor, of "giving better land during consolidation" affording the basis of alleged illegal gratification, as disclosed in complaint and F.I.R. Exh.PA and Exh.PF which, of course set the criminal law into motion, and charge-sheet, does not find support from testimony of P.Ws., who, have categorically described the same as to be "for not disturbing the possession of the land". P.W.2 has added to the extent that the appellant had promised to give 33 Kanals from "Chiragah". Such improvements can simply be taken to be an after thought affair and figment of imagination of complainant and prosecution witnesses. This aspect becomes all the more significant in face of hard fact that neither land fallen to the lot of Muhammad Khan was classified by any P.Ws., nor an appeal with regard thereto was admittedly preferred. Be that as it may, somersault, in this regard, annihilates the prosecution case, renders it to be baseless, impairs it beyond repair and rather superstructure has to collapse like house of cards.
10. Undoubtedly, it is not a raid case, bribe money was not recovered from appellant, there is serious and inordinate delay of not less than three years to which no explanation, what to speak of plausible, stands furnished, ocular evidence suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies on the points of A time, mode and purpose of payment of illegal gratification and absence of Akbar Shah, owner of house, is wrapped in mist. All these factors manifestly indicate that the prosecution case has no legs to stand. It is really inconceivable as to how the appellant could show favour to complainant and even P.Ws. Who, admittedly, do not own land. Last nail in the cofin of prosecution case is put by the fact that P.W.3 Muhammad Arif could have been easily induced to become witness against the appellant as he himself had filed a complaint against 'him.
Candid admission on the part of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they are witnesses in another complaint against the appellant adds nothing but insult to injury. They can, conveniently, be termed to be interested witnesses upon whom, no implicit reliance can be placed.
11. I agree with learned counsel for the appellant, who has categorized prosecution case as to be "cock and bull" story, which, in no way, can afford valid basis of conviction of the appellant. Same, consequently, is unsustainable and open to grave exceptions.
12. Upshot of the above discussion is that appeal is accepted, conviction and sentence are set aside and appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
13. He is on bail and is accordingly absolved of all his liabilities to the bail submitted by him.