LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE
JUDGMENT ..
Liaqat Ali son of Ahmed Ali aged 38 years, a Patwari, was sent to face the trial by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sheikhupura, under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5, subsection (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, convicted the appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and under section 5, subsection (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to two years R.I. with a fine of Rs.40,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months R.I. .
2. The background, in brief, of the case is that in the year 1984-85 the consolidation proceedings were going on in the village Kakripur, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. Liaqat Ali Patwari was posted there during the relevant time. The numerous landowners, during the said proceedings, made complaints to the Commissioner concerned, Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, and as well as to the Minister for Revenue, stating therein that the said Patwari by abusing his official position as a public servant, demanded and accepted as bribe Rs.10,000, Rs.7,000, Rs.9,000, Rs.16,000 and Rs.6,000 from Muhammad Sarwar, Akbar Ali, Muhammad Aslam, Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Ishaque respectively, for showing favour while exercising his official capacity by giving them superior land in lieu of their inferior land. The matter was referred to A.D.C.(C.), Lahore/Sheikhupura. The enquiry thereafter was entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Ilyas, Consolidation %cer, Lahore Cantt. who after enquiring into the matter thoroughly, made a report Exh.P.W.6/1 stating that prima facie the allegations against the accused/appellant were seemed correct. In view of the report Exh.P.W.6/1 of the Consolidation Officer; Lahore Cantt. A.D.C.(C), Lahore/Sheikhupura, wrote a letter Exh.P.W.7/ ' to the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, for the registration .of the case. On that information the F.I.R. Exh.P.W.l/9 was recorded by Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sheikhupura P.W.9.
3. On the completion of the investigation, accused/appellant was challaned. After receiving the challan, the charge was framed to which accused/appellant did not plead guilty and demanded for trial. The sanction for trial was also accorded by the Commissioner. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, produced as many as 9 witnesses. Muhammad Aslam P.W.1 stated that he had paid Rs.9,000 to the accused/appellant as a bribe during the consolidation proceedings of his village, Muhammad Sarwar P.W.2 also stated that he made the payment of Rs.10,000 to the accused for the same purpose. Akbar Ali P.W.3 also paid Rs.7,000 and he reiterated his version during the trial. Nawab Ali P.W.4 joined the investigation on 2-11-1988 and produced enquiry file Exh.P.W.4/1 before the Investigating Officer which was taken into possession. Khalid Pervaiz P.W.5 also joined the investigation on 2-11-1988 and produced file Exh.P.W.4/1 and the same was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.W.4/2. The disquieting feature of this case is that Khalid Pervaiz P.W.5 entered in the witness-box and made a similar statement word by word as was of Nawaz Ali P.W.4. Muhammad Ilyas P.W.6 who was posted as Consolidation Officer, Lahore Cantt. under the instructions enquired into the matter and prepared a report Exh.P.W.6/1. It is also pertinent to mention here that in cross-examination he very categorically stated that the letter whereby enquiry was entrusted to him was not before him at that time. Nusrat Hayat P.W.7 had received the enquiry report Exh.P.W.6/1 and order Exh.P.W.7/1 was made by him for the registration of the case. Muhammad Latif P.W.8 who was declared hostile is the real brother of Muhammad Aslam P.W. who stated that the bribe money was not handed over to the accused in his presence. P.W.9 Chaudhri Riaz, Inspector, who registered the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.W.9/1 on the basis of the report Exh.P.W.6/1, investigated the case and gave a detail of his investigation.
4. On the conclusion of the evidence it was put to the accused/appellant, who refuted the allegations levelled against him and professed innocence. Statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. was also recorded. He did not make a statement on oath under section 340, subsection (2), Cr.P.C.
However, he produced one Raja, Member of the Consolidation Committee, as a defence witness.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused could not be connected with any inculpatory evidence. The land of all the witnesses was affected during the consolidation proceedings and as such their evidence was biased. No witness could mention the time, year and place of handing over the money as bribe. The appeals were filed by the witnesses against the proposals prepared by the appellant but those were failed. Further, argued that the prosecution produced a witness before whom the bribe was given, who can be the only independent witness. He was declared hostile. No other independent witness was produced by the prosecution which was very essential in this case.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that the prosecution had proved -the case through a reliable trustworthy and undiluted testimony. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at considerable length and gone through the record.
7. Initially Muhammad Sarwar, Akbar Ali, Muhammad Aslam, Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Ishaque were stated to be the bribe givers and they also joined the enquiry proceedings alongwith Rehmat Ali and Muhammad Ismail whose statements were also recorded during the proceedings of the enquiry. During the enquiry it was allegedly proved that Muhammad Sarwar paid Rs.10,000, Akbar Ali Rs.7,000, Muhammad Aslam Rs.9,000, Sher Muhammad Rs.16,000 and Muhammad Ishaque Rs.6,000. At the time of the trial, out of all these five bribe givers only three were produced. Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Ishaque, according to the enquiry report Exh.P.W.6/1 were very imperiously pursuing the case. The name of those two witnesses were neither mentioned in the column of the witnesses of the final report nor they were produced by either of the parties. Muhammad Aslam P.W.1 who had paid Rs.9,000 as bribe, very clearly stated that he had made the payment in the presence of Muhammad Latif who is the real brother of him. He did not mention time, place, date, month or the year when he had handed over the alleged money. In an answer to a question he stated that he did not know as to how much land was given to him. He did not know the numbers of square even. Muhammad Sarwar P.W.2 deposed that he did not know the time and place of handing over the money. At one stage, he said that he had thumb marked the documents and of the same time he said that he had signed the same. Akbar Ali P.W.3 in cross-examination stated that his garden was given to his uncle during the proceedings of the consolidation. He had filed appeal against it but could not succeed. Further; stated that he was given the land of category of second and third class. There was another witness P.W.8 Muhammad Latif in whose presence Muhammad Aslam P.W.1 had made the payment, in his deposition he had made it clear that no bribe money was passed on to the accused/appellant in his presence. He further made it clear that his brother had annoyed over the decrease of the land in consolidation.
8. Keeping in view the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, I do find a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Out of five bribe givers only three were cited in the column of the witnesses in the final report. Others two might have not supported the version of the prosecution during the investigation. Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Sarwar, and Akbar Ali were the bribe givers. They were accomplices and as such their testimony could hot be made the basis for. the conviction, without any independent corroboration from any other source, which is missing in the instant case. The statement of the witnesses also suffer from numerous infirmities as discussed above. The witnesses have animous against the accused, who had prepared the proposals, decreasing their land, during the consolidation proceedings. Muhammad Latif, real brother of one of the bribe givers, did not support the version of the P.Ws. The witnesses do not know the time, place and year of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. In these circumstances, the uncorroborated and undiluted testimony of such witnesses could not be relied upon to convict the accused person.
In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. I allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him of the charge by giving him benefit of doubt. He is on bail. Bail bonds executed by him stand discharged.
N.H.Q./L-105/L Appeal allowed.