This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2001 filed by Anwar Jan Gill, appellant who was convicted and sentenced by learned Special Judge Central, Faisalabad vide judgment, dated 16-8-2001 as under:-- Two years R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs.25,000 in default S.I. For six months under section 17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, and Five years R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs.50,000 in default S.I. For one year under section 22 of Emigration Ordinance.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Munawar Masih, complainant got recorded F.I.R. Alleging therein that Anwar Jan Gill, appellant exerted Rs.3,20,000 on the pretext of sending the complainant abroad. Having failed to fulfill the promise, the complainant made report against the accused-appellant. After completion of investigation, the accused was challaned to face the trial. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 6 witnesses in all. After that statement of the appellant was recorded in which he pleaded involvement due to political rivalry. He also produced 3 D.Ws. In his defence. After conclusion of the trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above. Hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that case against the appellant is totally false, that it was politically motivated case, that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution, that both the independent witnesses are real brothers inter see.
Learned counsel submits that moreover, no recovery of any amount was effected from the appellant during the investigation, neither any passport, National Identity Card or any other incriminating article was recovered on the operation of the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the appellant has also produced three D.Ws. And he himself appeared as defence witness as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In order to rebut the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact it is a case of no evidence and the appellant is entitled to acquittal.
4. On the other hand learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that both the witnesses Munawar Masih and Pervaiz Masih have proved the prosecution case to its hilt and there is no question of false implication. He supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the statements of the P.Ws. Mere relationship of witnesses inter se is no reason to discard their evidence. There is no previous background of enmity between the parties and even there is no question of false implication. Both the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case to its hilt. As far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the story of the first informant in the F.I.R. Was that he had given Rs.3,20,000 to the appellant to get visa of America, is concerned, that was negated by his brother Pervaiz Masih who had stated before the learned trial Court that he also paid the money so according to the learned counsel both the versions are different one. I may state here that when Pervaiz Masih was cross --examined and this question was put to him, no confrontation was brought on record by the learned defence counsel as required under the law.
There is no contradiction in statements of both the P.Ws. As far as statement of the appellant on oath is concerned, it does not advance the case of defence. Statements of D.Ws. Produced by the appellant are neither here nor there. They have only stated that the appellant was not dealing in visas and moreover, they also stated that appellant is a respectable person. Appellant was found guilty by the F.I.A., after thorough inquiry. As far as non-- recovery of amount from the appellant is concerned, it has been noticed by this Court that in such-like cases first of all F.I.A. Do not recover any money and if they recover the same, they usurp themselves and do not make any recovery memo. As far as defence evidence of the appellant is concerned, that is not tenable in the eyes of law and on such flimsy reason as suggested by the learned defence counsel before the learned trial Court the prosecution case is not damaged in any way. Moreover, Court has to see the intrinsic value of the statements of the witnesses and if the Court is satisfied that the evidence has come from an unimpeachable source then there is no need of any corroboration.
6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court is not convinced by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and there is no doubt in my mind that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant. In this view of the matter, this appeal is found to be merit less and the same is dismissed.