' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,617 of 1993 filed by Zahoor Akram appellant, who was convicted and sentenced by learned Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore on 20-9-1993 to undergo two years's R.I., with a fine of Rs,10,000, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months' R.I. Under section 161, P.P.C. Appellant was further convicted and sentenced under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to undergo two years' R.I. It was also directed that fine if realized a sum of Rs,5,000 be paid to the complainant. Both the ,sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Bgnefit of section 382-B, -Cr.P.C. Was also granted to the appellant.
2. The occurrence in this case took place on 9-6-1991 and the matter was reported by Muhammad Isa complainant through Exh.PA to Additional Director Anti-Corruption, Choburji Circle, Lahore on 5- 1-1992 and after the inquiry F.I.R. Was lodged on 24-3-1992.
3. The prosecution case as disclosed by the record is that Muhammad Isa complainant, the then student of LL.B University I. College, Lahore, proceeded to Gilgit on a trip with other students on 31-5- 1991 and returned with his colleagues on 9-6-1991 by means of Punjab University Bus and alighted the bus near Minar-e-Pakistan as he happened to be resident of a nearby area. He boarded a rickshaw and left for Misri Shah. At about 6.15 a.m. He was stopped by Shaheen Force near lk Moria Pull on the allegation that he was in possession of un-customed goods of foreign origin and illicit arms and ammunitions.
4. The Shaheen Force took him to Police Station Misri Shah where Zahoor Akram, S.I. (accused) registered a case under the Customs Act and so also under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and obtained his physical remand for a day on 10-6-1991. In the evening the S.I. Demanded a sum of Rs,5,000 as bribe from the complainant and undertook to return all the goods seized from him and not to administer physical beating. Being frightened the complainant requested the Sub- Inspector to send a message to his brother Muhammad Musa to arrange for the demanded amount. According to the version set out in the complaint Exh.PA., the accused went to the house of the complainant and asked his brother to manage the aforesaid amount. His brother Muhammad Musa collected the amount and delivered the same to the complainant in the police station.
Muhammad Asif Sheikh and Muhammad Naeem Khan P.Ws. Went to see him in the Police Station on coming to know of the registration of the case. The demanded amount was paid by the complainant to the accused in presence of these two witnesses. The goods seized from him were lying with the S.I. Who undertook to . Return to him. On the following day he was produced before the Court and was bailed out. Later on he applied for the return of Rs,16,000 which were recovered from his personal search at the time of his arrest. In pursuance of the order of the Court the S.I.
Returned him this amount. He had to face two cases, one in the Custom's Court and the other in the ordinary Court under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance.
5. On 5-12-1991 he was acquitted by the Customs Judge and the Court ordered that all articles except the arms and ammunition be returned to the complainant.
6. According to the complainant's version following articles were misappropriated by the accused:- -
(1) Rs,5,000 (Bribe money).
(2) A Blanket made in Italy.
(3) A Leather Jacket.
(4) One pair of Joggers (Italian)
(5) One piece of emerald.
(6) One Man Show Perfume one bottle.
(7) TDK cassettes six pieces.
(8) Almonds of superior quality-5 KG.
(9) Ponds Cream one big bottle.
(10) One vial of Salajeet (Tonic for Rheumatic Pai).
(11) Hair brush one.
(12) One small torch.
(13) A dinner set.
(14) Eight thermos jugs. (Japan Make)
7. Out of this list the accused returned only dinner set and the jugs and failed to return the remaining articles despite his repeated requests.
8. It was on the basis of these allegation that the Additional Director, ACE, Lahore ordered for an inquiry by Malik Muhammad Afzal, Assistant Director, (Legal), ACE, Lahore. The Assistant Director despite his best efforts failed to procure the attendance of the accused who, in the first instance, was under training at Sihala and then came back to Lahore. The Inquiry Officer addressed various letters-Exh . PW .4/1, Exh PW .4/2 and Exh.PW.4/3 to the Commandant, Police Training College, Sihala but the officer remained reluctant to appear and finally the Inquiry Officer received letter Exh.PW.4/4 from the Commandant, PTC, Sihala that the accused had joined the institution for training on 25-10-1991 but was absent since 27-1-1992 and could not report back till 15-2-1992; as such the College authorities were obliged to revert him back to his parent District Lahore vide their Letter No,1246- 47/PC, dated 17-2-1992. The Inquiry Officer was then advised that necessary proceedings be taken against him through his present district administration.
9. Consequently, the Inquiry Officer wrote a letter Exh.PW.4/5 to Superintendent of Police, Lahore, but even then the accused failed to appear before him and the Inquiry Officer was left with no alternative but to proceed against him ex parte on account of the adamancy of the accused to appear before him.
10. On the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer the case F.I.R. No,10 of 1992 was registered at Police Station ACE, Lahore.
11. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced six witnesses in all. Muhammad Isa complainant appeared as P.W.1 and verified his statement/complaint Exh.PA. Muhammad Musa P.W.2 is real brother of Muhammad Isa and supported the prosecution case and stated before the trial Court that appellant damanded bribe from his brother and he after arranging money handed over the same to his brother Muhammad Isa, who was in police lock-up. Muhammad Asif was examined as P.W.3, he owns a printing press in Urdu Bazar, Lahore. He was friend of complainant Muhammad Isa and stated before the trial Court that the complainant paid Rs,5,000 to the appellant in his presence. Muhammad Afzal, Assistant Director (Legal) Anti-Corruption, Department was examined as P. W.4 and stated before the trial Court that he was ordered by his superior to hold the inquiry on the complaint Exh.PA submitted by Muhammad Isa complainant. According to Muhammad Afzal, P.W.4 he did his best to procure the attendance of the appellant but appellant deliberately avoided to appear before him and Director Legal was forced to examine the witnesses of the complainant ex parte and finally on the basis of his report, formal F.I.R. Exh.PA/1 was recorded, later on, the investigation was transferred to him. Another eye-witness, namely, Muhammad Naeem Khan about whom it was reported by the Process Server that Muhammad Naeem Khan was away to Korea so he was given up by the prosecution. The proceedings were still pending when Muhammad Naeem came to Pakistan, he gave an application through the P.P. To be examined as a witnesses. Appellant's counsel before the trial Court did not object to this so Muhammad Naeem Khan was also examined as P.W.6. He also supported the prosecution case to the effect that Muhammad Isa complainant paid Rs,5,000 as bribe to the accused in his presence in the Police Station. Appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., where he had denied the allegation levelled by the prosecution and stated that complainant was apprehended by Emergency Squard on 10-6-1991 and entire recovery was effected by Saud Ahmad, A.S.I., Emergency Squared and the recovery memo. Was also prepared by him and all these articles were duly returned to him.
Appellant has also examined one Rashid Ahmad D.W.1 constable No,10511. Maqbool Ahmad, Head Constable; Naib Moharrir Police Station Misri Shah was examined as D.W.2. Saeed Ahmad A.S.I.
Emergency 'Squard appeared as D.W.3. Appellant also appeared as his own witness under section 340, Cr.P.C.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has read before me the prosecution evidence and the other evidence recorded by the learned trial Court and makes the following submissions He submits that there is a delay of seven months in lodging the F.I.R. Without any plausible explanation and whole of the prosecution story becomes doubtful. He further submits that in fact, complainant Muhammad Isa when arrested got recovered three unlicensed pistols, two mouzers along with more than .100 live bullets which shows that what type of man he was. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that when the appellant was already having Rs,16,000 which was recovered from the personal search of Isa complainant at the time of his arrest then' there was no need to demand Rs,5,000 as bribe money. Adds, that Muhammad Isa and Muhammad Musa P.Ws. Are real brothers inter se while P.W.3 and P.W.6, namely, Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Naeem Khan are their "Mohallandar"/friends and they are interested witnesses. He further submits that statements of Muhammad Isa complainant recorded in case F.I.R. No, 249 of 1991 under sections 340(2) and 342, Cr.P.C. Were also tendered by appellant are Exh.DB and Exh.DC, therein, the complainant had admitted the enmity between the appellant and himself.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the lower Court very minutely. In my view, there is no deliberate delay in lodging the F.I.R. On behalf of the complainant, for the reasons that the money was demanded and was also paid on 10-6-1991 while the application/complaint Exh.PA was submitted before the Anti-Corruption Authorities on. 5- 1-1992. The reasons for this delay was that complainant had to face two cases one under Arms Ordinance and other under the Customs Act were registered against the complainant and he was being tried there. Complainant was acquitted by the Custom Court on 5-11-1991 while the Challan in the Arms Ordinance case was submitted against the complainant on 16-9-1991. The complainant Muhammad Isa remained busy in those two cases and had been joining the investigation of those cases and also contesting the same. He became free from the case under the Customs Act on 5-12-1991, on the very same days he lodged the complaint. So, in my view, complainant has become successful in explaining the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Even later on, complainant was also acquitted in the Arms Ordinance case. Rs,16,000 was recovered from the personal search of the complainant in presence of the witnesses, however, the same could not be swa llowed by the appellant. Appellant had to return the said amount of Rs,16,000 which was recovered from the complainant from his personal and the other articles on the order of the Court.
None of the P. Ws. Was inimical towards the appellant. They had no enmity whatsoever with the appellant. Mere relationship or friendship of a witness with the complainant is no criteria to discard his evidence. All the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case before the learned trial Court. In my view, prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. Appellant belongs to Law Enforcing Agency. He was there to protect the life and liberty of the citizen but by misusing his official capacity he had forced the complainant to give him bribe, no leniency can be shown to him. Appeal filed by him is dismissed. He is on bail. He shall be taken into custody and sent to judicial lock-up to serve out his remaining sentence. The judgment of the learned trial Court is upheld.