MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus THE STATE
Muhammad Iqbal son of Haji Muhammad Khan was sent up for trial by Police Station A.C.E., Mianwali, for an offence under section 5-C of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The case was heard by Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Sargodha, who, at the conclusion of the trial, vide his judgment dated 10-4-1988, found Muhammad Iqbal guilty and sentenced him to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.40,000 or in default in payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for nine months. Muhammad Iqbal has filed an appeal challenging his conviction and sentence, which shall be disposed of by this judgment.
2. The facts in brief, as given in the F.I.R. Exh.P.L, are that one Amir Kalam gave an application in the year 1983 to the Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sargodha Division, levelling certain allegations against the appellant. The. complaint was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali, who forwarded the same to the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Mianwali, which, after holding an inquiry submitted a report on 6-3-1985, and a case on the basis of the same was registered against the appellant. The allegation as levelled against the appellant was that he was a Registry Clerk and used to charge heavy amounts from the people who would come to him for the purpose of getting their transactions registered. In the inquiry it also transpired that the appellant was constructing a house which admittedly was beyond his known sources of income.
3. The prosecution in support of its case has produced seven witnesses in all. P.W.1 Muhammad Iqbal, Reader/Registration Muharrir deposed to the effect that he has brought the original record with regard to the registry of a piece of land made on 2-2-1983. A copy of the same, Exh.P.A. was placed on the rile. The allegation against the appellant is that he was constructing a house on the said land. In cross-examination the witness has stated that the said transaction was a sale to Mst. Nasreen, wife of the appellant. It is also in the cross -examination that said Mst. Nasreen was not present at the time of registration of the document, therefore, the price of Rs.20,000 was paid by her father Jan Muhammad. P.W.2 Amir Kalam Khan's statement could not be recorded because the original application which he had moved before the Deputy Martial Law Administrator was not traceable. Ch. Muhammad Ashiq, C.O./A.C.E., Mianwali, P.W.3, stated that on 21-6-1986, he investigated the case and recorded the statements of the witnesses and after necessary investigation, challaned the appellant. In cross-examination he has admitted that the first informant Amir Kalam during investigation had disowned his application moved before the Deputy Martial Law Administrator. P.W.4 Habibullah, Patwari, produced 'Fardaat' pertaining to the year 1987. In cross-examination he has admitted that he knows the father and the father-in-law of the appellant. He has further admitted that both of them were Government servants and after retirement they gave the entire amount which they received on retirement to the appellant. P.W.5 Malik Ghulam Rasul, Patwari, produced a copy of Roznamcha pertaining to 18-1 1981. Iftikhar Ahmad, S.I., P.W.6 conducted the preliminary inquiry against the appellant and on the basis of his report the present case was registered against him. In cross-examination, he has admitted that in his inquiry he had associated the father and the father-in-law of the appellant who had stated that whatever amount they got at the time of retirement they handed over to the appellant with the help of which he was constructing a house. He has also admitted that the land on which the said house is being constructed was given to the wife of the appellant by her father. Faiz Ahmad, P.W.7, Tehsildar, Eisa Khel produced a COPY of the Registry Exh.PA.
The appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he refuted the entire prosecution evidence and pleaded that the amount in question with which he was building the house had been given to him by his father and father-in-law. He also produced two defence witnesses, i.e., his father and father- in-law who supported the version of the appellant.
4. It is contended by learned counsel that the case against the appellant is extremely doubtful. Submits that the charge framed against the appellant was that he was constructing a house, which according to the evaluation of the Sub-