' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,295 of 1993 filed by Muhammad Jameel, who was convicted and sentenced by Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Punjab, Lahore on 3-5-1993 to undergo two years' R.I. Under section 161, P.P.C. And a fine of Rs,5,000 and to undergo one year's R.I. Under sections 5(2) and 47, P.C.A. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Out of fine, if realized Rs,2,000 was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. In default of payment of fine six months' R.I.
2. The facts which led to the prosecution of the accused, briefly are that one Pehlwan brother-in- law of Rehmat a cousin of Muhammad Younis complainant came from Karachi to Muridke to visit his relations. On a secret intelligence that aforesaid Pehlwan traffics in drugs, Muhammad Jamil accused alongwith his colleague Tariq Constable came to the house of the cousin of the complainant in order to apprehend Pehlwan. They could not find Pehlwan and in his place took away Mst. Seeman the sister of aforesaid Rehmat to the police station. Her release was, however, secured through the intervention of respectables of the area. On the following day the accused and his friend Tariq apprehended Rehmat and demanded the production of Pehlwan and in order to hush up the matter demanded a sum of Rs,700. The complainant intervened and assured the accused and his friend that the money would be paid by him. The accused was good enough to release Rehmat on the assurance that the money would be paid to him on the following day i,e, 19- 4-1992 at 7-00 p.m. They, however, warned him that in case the money, as promised was not paid Rehmat would again be hauled up.
3. The complainant never wanted to make the payment of the bribe and approached the A.C.E. The Inspector, A.C.E. Procured the order of A.D.M., Sheikhupura whereby Mr. Najamul Hassan Naqvi, M.I.C.
(P.W.2) was deputed to supervise the raid. After taking the necessary steps and noting the numbers of currency notes produced by the complainant the raiding party set out for Muridke. The raiding Magistrate and the Inspector A.C.E. Stood near the Rehri of the complainant and waited for the arrival of the accused. The accused appeared there at the appointed time, demanded the amount which was paid to him by the complainant in view of the raiding Magistrate and the Inspector A.C.E. They also overheard the talk between the two as they were standing quite nearby.
After completion of the necessary proceedings the accused was arrested and was challaned on the completion of investigation.
4. When confronted with the aforesaid charge the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced three witnesses namely Muhammad Younis complainant P.W.1, Najamul Hassan Naqvi, M.I.C., Sheikhupura P.W.2 and Muhammad Afzal Co. A.C.E.
As P.W.3.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant after reading the evidence submits that complainant Muhammad Younis had completely failed to identify the appellant in the trial Court. He submits that moreover the Public Prosecutor also did not ask the complainant to identify the appellant in the trial Court. He submits that complainant is the star-witness of the prosecution and he has not supported the prosecution case. He also submits that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that Najamul Hassan Nal1'6 P.W.2 has implicated the appellant in his statement recorded on oath. He also submits that Muhammad Afzal Co., A.C.E., Sheikhupura has also implicated the appellant. She supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court. In the examination-in chief, Muhammad Younis. Complainant P.W.1 had not identified the appellant in the trial Court, that he was the same person who had received the bribe from him. Neither the Public Prosecutor tried to get identified the appellant from the complainant in the trial Court. In cross-examination, the complainant Muhammad Younis had categorically stated on oath, that the person who had taken bribe from him was not present in Court. The witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. The complainant was an aggrieved person who did not recognize the appellant before the learned trial Court. The case was registered in 1992. Seven years have already passed. As far as Najamul Hassan Naqvi, M.I.C., Sheikhupura and Muhammad Afzal Co, A.C.E., P.W.2 and P.W.3 are concerned, although they support the prosecution case blit as I have stated above, the complainant has not supported the prosecution case.
Moreover, Pehlwan was not produced either before the police or before the learned trial Court to support the version of the complainant.
9. Taking all these facts into consideration I extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial. Court is set aside. Appellant is on bail and he is discharged from his bail bonds.