1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 13-1-2003 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dismissed Criminal Appeal No,30 of 1998 filed by the petitioner maintaining his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Multan, through his judgment dated 2-1- 1998 whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to undergo one year's R.I. In a case emanated out of F.I.R. No,40 dated 2-10-1993 registered at Police Station A.C.E., Multan Region, under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the above Act.
2. ' The allegation against the petitioner, who was working as Excise and Taxation Inspector at the relevant time, was that he demanded Rs,2500 as illegal gratification for issuance of a copy of P.T.1.
3. The complainant Muhammad Haneef paid Rs,1000 to the petitioner in the presence of witnesses and the remaining amount of Rs,1500 was to be paid subsequently. A raiding party was constituted at the initiation of the complaint made by the complainant. An amount of Rs,1500 was paid to the petitioner and accordingly Javed Mehmood Bhatti, M.I.C. (P.W.5) recovered the tainted money from a drawer of the table of the petitioner.
4. ' After investigation the challan of the case was submitted. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined five witnesses while the petitioner denied the allegation and produced four witnesses in defence, which mostly stated about the affidavit of the complainant given subsequent to the present incident wherein he exonerated the petitioner.
5. ' The learned Special Judge, after evaluating the entire evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that payment of Rs,1,500 after the constitution of the raid was not proved beyond any shadow of doubt as the complainant did not enter the witness-box. However, keeping into consideration the evidence brought on record whereby it was proved to the hilt that the complainant paid Rs,1000 to the petitioner at the initial stage, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Special Judge through his judgment dated 2-1-1998 and was fined Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to undergo R.I. For one year.
6. ' His appeal against the above judgment was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court at Multan Bench through his judgment dated 13-1-2003, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
7. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel and have gone through the entire evidence brought on record with his assistance. It is true that the complainant has not entered the witness-box and has submitted an affidavit favouring the petitioner. However, no reliance can be placed upon such type of affidavit as the other side was not given any opportunity to examine him because of his non-appearance. Even otherwise, it is reflected from the reading of the record that whole machinery was moved at the initiation of the complainant who lodged a complaint and at his asking a raiding party was constituted, which ultimately raided the premises and recovered the tainted amount. The payment of Rs,1,000 has been established beyond doubt from the testimony of Saeed Ali (P.W.2) and Muhammad Siddiq (P.W.3), both of whom have got no animus whatsoever against the petitioner. They have categorically deposed that the petitioner demanded the amount of Rs,2,500 for the issuance of P.T.1 and out of the said amount Rs,1,000 were paid initially and the remaining amount of Rs,1,500 was to be paid subsequently. Reliance of the learned counsel upon the case of Bashir Ahmad, Junior Clerk, District Education Office (Male)
8. District Jhang v. State 2001 SCM R 634, is not apt as the facts and evidence of the present case are totally different from the above case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
9. ' Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, we see no force in the present petition and dismiss the same and refuse leave.