SALEEM ULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE

' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitither seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 18- 4-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No,1193 of 2001.

2. As a result of an inquiry on the complaint (Exh.P.C.) of one Allah Ditta, a case F.I.R. No,5 (Exh.P.I.) dated 3-5-1998 under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered, against the petitioner at Police Station, Anti Corruption Establishment, Bhakkar. It was alleged therein by the complainant that 7/8 years back, he had purchased land with its physical possession from one Mehr Noor Muhammad for a consideration of Rs,3,00,000. However, in the year 1998, the said vendor forcibly took over possession of the same in the absence of the complainant.

' Therefore, the complainant accompanied by Dildar Hussain P.W.3,approached the petitioner with an application who demanded and received a sum of Rs,5,000 from the complainant in order to proceed with the application. The petitioner arrested three persons along with fire-arms from the place of occurrence but released them soon thereafter. Therefore, the complainant Allah Ditta approached the Superintendent of Police, Bhakkar, under whose directions criminal case against vendor Mehr Noor Muhammad etc. Was registered. The petitioner was tried by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Bhakkar. After the conclusion of prosecution and the defence evidence and his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., 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 two years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default thereof to further undergo S.I. For six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended in his favour. He filed Criminal Appeal No,1193 of 2001 against his conviction and sentence which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, by the impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no recovery of the bribe money from the petitioner and the mere statements of the complainant and another interested witness Dildar Hussain P.W.3 could not furnish basis for the conviction and sentence. It was further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were vague and nonspecific and the case against the petitioner was not proved. It was lastly contended that the impugned judgment violated the principles of safe administration of criminal justice.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The petitioner was Sub-Inspector of Police who became fugitive from justice and was proceeded against under section 87/88, Cr.P.C.

The charge against the petitioner of accepting illegal gratification of Rs,5,000 from the complainant, was duly proved by the prosecution. The Lahore High Court also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner after re-appraisal of the evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to A point out any material discrepancy in the case of the prosecution. The mere non- recovery of bribe money would not be of any consequence in the facts and circumstances of the case. The case was registered against the petitioner after thorough inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Department. The impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.