' This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Lahore, dated 2nd August 1972, by which the appellant has been convicted under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. According to the facts of the prosecution story, the appellant is a Bill Distributor, Electricity Office, WAPDA, Allama Iqbal Road, Lahore. Ghulam Muhammad P. W. 2 a weaver of Kasur, had installed power-looms and it is alleged that he could not pay the electricity bill and the electricity was disconnected. He alongwith his worker Barkat Ali came to the Electricity Office WAPDA and gave an application to senior clerk Sardar Muhammad (P. W. 4) and requested that he may be allowed to pay the electricity bill in instalments and the application submitted to P. W. 4 was being processed by the said P. W. It is also alleged that the appellant met the complainant (P. W, 2) who demanded Rs. 60 as illegal gratification for helping him. The complainant paid Rs. 20 as part payment to the appellant alongwith electricity bill and application P. W. 1/A. The complainant after two or three days again paid Rs. 20 to the appellant in this connection with the assurance that the work will be got done by the appellant. After about twenty-five days when the work was not done, Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 2) came to the Anti-Corruption Department and submitted an application narrating the facts of the demand of Rs. 60 and there it was stated that Rs. 40 were yet to be paid but now according to the contents of the application the appellant has agreed to receive Rs.
20. This application is Exh. P. W. 3/A and the report of the police officer is P. W. 3/D. On the basis of this application, formal F. I. R. Was reduced into writing which is Exh. P. W. 3/B. The matter was also referred to the Additional District Magistrate for deputing some Magistrate to supervise the raid.
The report of the police officer asking for a Magistrate is Exh. P. W. 1/B. The order of the A. D. M.
Whereby Mr. Jamshaid Ahmad Magistrate (P. W. 1) was deputed to supervise the raid is Exh. P. W.
1/A. The Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant P. W. 2 which is Exh. P. W. 1/C. The Magistrate then noted down the numbers of two currency notes of Rs. 10 each and gave them to the complainant vide report Exh. P. W. 1/D. From the report it appears that the tainted currency notes could not be delivered to the appellant on 4th August 1969 and on the 5th of August 1969 another attempt was made and an endorsement of the Magistrate referring to the numbers of currency notes is Exh. P. W. 1/E, but the currency notes could not be passed on to the appellant till 1 p.m. On that day. A third attempt was made on the same day at about 1-05 p.m. And eventually it is shown that one currency note of Rs. 10 was recovered which was lying in the Potli. Eventually, the investigation was completed and the case was challaned in the Court of Special Judge Anti- Corruption, Lahore.
3. The prosecution has produced P. W. 1 Syed Jamshed Ali Magistrate who recorded the statement of the complainant and that of the appellant and completed the raiding report. P. W. 2 is Ghulam Muhammad complainant who has narrated the prosecution story. P. W. 3 is Rao Abdul Jalil Khan, Inspector, C. I. A. And P. W. 4 is Sardar Muhammad, Senior Clerk, to whom a direct application was given by the complainant for the recovery of the amount of the electricity bill in instalments. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded and he denied all the prosecution allegations and he specifically stated that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case because the S. D.
0. Mr. Riaz-ud-Din was inimical to him and had quarrelled with him many a times before the institution of the criminal proceedings. He also produced defence witnesses. D. W. 1 Muhammad Tayyab, senior clerk, specifically stated that the appellant is of good conduct and he was rewarded Rs. 200 by the department for his honesty. D. W. 2 is a Lineman who has narrated the incident of enmity of the appellant with Riaz-ud-Din D. W. 3 Muhammad Anwar Meter Reader, has also stated that the S. D.
0. Riaz-ud-Din had quarrelled with the appellant a few days before the institution of these proceedings. D. W. 4 is Munir Ahmad, Office Superintendent, who has stated about the good conduct of the appellant.
' After appreciating evidence of both sides, the learned Special Judge, Lahore, convicted the appellant under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.
200 or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
The judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, dated 2nd August 1972, was challenged in the High Court by way of present appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that P. W. 2 Ghulam Muhammad is a decoy witness and there is no independent corroboration without which conviction cannot be maintained. It is also submitted that the prosecution story does not inspire confidence and appears to have been fabricated at the instance of S. D.
0. Riaz-ud-Din.
5. Before convicting a person under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code it is necessary for the prosecution to show that the illegal gratification was received by the accused for doing any official act or showing favour or disfavour to any person. It is admitted fact that the appellant is only an Electricity Bill Distrioutor, and a person who has installed power-looms is fully aware that a Bill Distributor cannot do any favour in the discharge of his duties. According to prosecution story, the appellant agreed to get Rs. 60 as illegal gratification for getting the electricity bill amounting to Rs.
292.45 paid in instalments by concerned official, but P. W. 4 Sardar Muhammad has specifically stated that P. W. 2 Ghulam Muhammad directly came to him with an application and the application was processed by him and the proceeding for obtaining order that the amount be paid in instalments, was yet to be obtained. In such circumstances, it appears very strange that the appellant who was only a Bill Distributor and had absolutely no connection with the office work, could be regarded, that he was in a position to do some favour to the complainant. As stated earlier this version of the prosecution stands falsified by the witness of the prosecution, namely, P.
W.
4. According to the prosecution story, Rs. 60 were agreed to be given as illegal gratification but currency note of Rs. 10 was recovered from one potli and that too not from the person of the appellant. P. W. 2 Ghulam Muhammad complainant has stated that he had already paid Rs. 20 previously and if this is accepted to be correct, it does not appeal to reason that the complainant who had already paid Rs. 20 as illegal gratification, would report the matter to the Anti-Corruption Department when he actually wanted to pay Rs. 10 as illegal gratification. It may be stated that the factum of demand of illegal gratification and the receipt of the same needs corroboration and there is absolutely no independent evidence to corroborate the testimony of P. W.
2. P. W. 1 the Magistrate has specifically stated that he could not hear the conversation between the appellant and P. W. 2 the complainant. In the absence of any corroboration, the testimony of P. W. 2 cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, the defence version of the prosecution clearly states that the appellant being Bill Distributor was not in good terms with the S. D.
0. Who had previously quarrelled with each other, and due to this enmity there is a possibility that he may have been falsely implicated in the matter. D. W. 1 Muhammad Tayyab has specifically stated that he was rewarded Rs. 200 for his honesty and efficiency. D. W. 4 Munir Ahmad stated that the appellant appears a good moral character. In criminal cases the prosecution story is to be placed in juxtaposition with the defence version. The prosecution, as stated earlier, has not proved the factum of demand of illegal gratification by cogent evidence whereas the defence story appears to be more convincing.
6. In the above circumstance, I accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Special Judge, dated 2nd August 1972, and acquit the appellant of the charge.