MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus THE STATE

Muhammad Ramzan, Revenue Patwari, Halqa Bait Sohni (Muzaffargarh District) has been sentenced by Special Judge, Multan, to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200 under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section ~(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In default of payment of tine, the appellant is to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment further. His appeal is before me.

2. By the order of Collector Muzaffargarh, the leases of some evacuee land in village Bait Sohni were auctioned to various bidders. Each lease was for a period of have years. Nihal lain (P. W. 4) of Gazi Ghat obtained a tease of three plots marked 7, 8 and 10. A robkar was issued to Muhammad Ramzan appellant to arrange for the delivery of possession of the auctioned plots to various lessees. As no reply was received, fresh robkar Exh. P. B. was issued to the Girdawar on 7th September 1964, for necessary action. On 13th October 1964, Nihal Din P. W. submitted application Exh. P. C. to the Tehsildar complaining that the Patwari had refused to point out hips plots for want of relevant papers. The application was marked to the Girdawar, and as no action was taken, the complainant filed fresh applica tion Exh. P. D. on 3rd November 1964, alleging that the Patwari had pointed out some other arcs to hint as owners of the adjoining land wanted to encroach upon his land, arrangement be made for pointing out the land leased to him. This application was also sent to the Girdawar, who was direct ed to go specially to the spot to do the needful. After this, the complainant met the appellant and told him that his application had been sent to the Girdawar. The appellant told him that he could not get possession through any one till Rs. 60 were paid to him as a bribe. The demand was subsequently reduced to Rs. 40 and it was arranged that the appellant would reach the spot for necessary action the next day. As the complainant did not wish to pay a bribe, he sent to Muzaffargarh early next morning I.e. on 26th December 1964, and reported the matter to Ch. Muhammad Ismail (P. W. 6) Circle Officer, Anti‑Corruption establishment He asked the complainant to go to the spot and himself went to General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, 'Muzaffargarh, wino deputed Mr. Muhammad Afzal (P. W. 3), Naib Tehsildar, to conduct the raid. They went to the abadi of Kot Wandwali,. w here the complainant owned some land near the leased lots. It was raid‑day by that time. They were accommodated by the complainant in a kotha in which his tenant Allah Wasaya IP. W. 5) resided the Naib Tehsildar recorded the complainant's statement Exh. P. F. and ::parked four currency notes of Rs. IO each, which were given to him by the complainant and which were to be offered as a brine. The members of the raiding party remained inside the kotha, while the complainant and Allah Wasaya P. W. went out and sat on a cot at a short distance from there. The appellant arrived at about 1‑15 p.m. and the currency notes as well as application Exh. P. D. were delivered by the complainant to him. The appellant put the currency notes in his pocket and began to prepare copy the Khasra Girdawari. Allah Wasaya P. W. went back and brought the members of raiding party. The Magistrate disclosed his identity to the appellant and asked him to produce the currency notes taken by him. The appellant handed them over to him. The Magistrate also took possession of Robkar Exh. P. B. applications Exhs. P. C. and P. D., and incomplete copy of Khasra Girdawari Exh. P. J., which was being prepared, when the raid took place. He then recorded statement Exh. P. M. of the appellant, who stated that he had received the money as a loan from Muhammad Amin (D. W.) in connection with the marriage of his maternal nephew and not as a bribe from the complainant. Muhammad Amin did not belong to Wandawali but he had come to visit his sister. The Magistrate sent for him then and them and recorded his statement Exh. P. N. He denied the giving of a loan to the appellant. The Magistrate also recorded the statement of Allah Wasaya Exh. P. A. and of the complainant Exh. P. K.

3. After obtaining necessary sanction, the appellant was prosecuted in due course. He denied guilt and repeated his plea of obtaining the money as a loan from Muhammad Amin. He produced two witnesses in defence. Muhammad Amin (D. W. 1) deposed that he had cordial relations with the complainant who resided next to his mother's house. He sold cotton worth Rs. 100 to him on credit about a month before the raid. A week before the raid the appellant asked him for a loan of Rs. 40 which was needed by him in connection with the marriage of his nephew. He asked the complainant for the money which was due from him because he wanted to meet the demand of Muhammad Ramzan appellant. The com plainant told him that he should ask the appellant to help in ejecting Muhammad Hussain. Both went to the Patwarkhana and talked to him about the matter. The appellant expressed his inability to dispossess the trespasser and advised him to eject him through Court. When asked to supply a copy of the Khasra Girdawari he replied that he would prepare it after his nephew's marriage they pressed him to supply the copy without delay and he agreed to do sit, The complainant promised to pay the money on the following day at the house of his tenant in Wandanwali. On the other hand the appellant promised to prepare and deliver a copy of the Khasra Girdawari there. After obtaining money from the complainant at Wandanwali the next day the witness gave it to the appellant and then went to his sister's house soon afterwards ht‑ was called by the raiding Magistrate and his statement was recorded which however was not read over to him. He denied having told the Magistrate that he had no monetary dealings with J the appellant.

4. Rustam Ali Khan (D. W. 2) stated that in August 164, the appel lant put the complainant in possession of three lots of agricultural land. As lot No. 7 was in possession of ore Muhammad Hussain, only Malkana possession of this lot was given. The complainant pressed for actual possession but the appellant advised him to move the Revenue Officer for ejectment.

5. The case against the appellant is doubtful. There is not a word regarding the demand of a bribe in applications Exhs. P. C. and P. D. to the Tehsildar. It was alleged in Exh. P. C. that the appellant had refused to point out the leased land to him when they went to the spot on 11‑10‑1964 among with Wahid Bakhsh Lambardar Bait Sohni, in his subsequent application Exh. P. D. he stated that he did not know the boundaries and other particulars of the leased land and some other land had been pointed out to him. But he admitted at the trial under cross‑examination that he had obtained possession of lot No. 10 even before he had bid for lots Nos. and 8 and he had obtained actual possession of lot No. 8 without a hitch. He conceded that Muhammad Hussain who was in occupation of lot No. 7 had also surrendered possession but reoccupied the land after complainant had ploughed it. He further conceded that he had checked all the three lots before bidding for them at the auction. It is thus clear that the real grievance of the complainant was that the appellant raid not assist him in turning out Muhammad Hussain from lot No. 7, straightaway. He seemed to have got the impression that the appellant was not helping him because he had instigated him to reoccupy the land. There is no cor roboration of this statement of the complainant as to what the appellant had told him on different occasions. In application Exh. P. C. the complainant mentioned that Wahid Bakhsh Lambardar was present when the Patwari refused to demarcate the land. He has not been produced to bear him out.

6. Coming to the evidence of the raid, the Magistrate and the Police Officer did not see or hear what had transpired between the parties at the spot. This part of the case rests on the testimony of the complainant, who had no love lost for the appellant and Allah Wasaya P. W. who was not only a tenant of the complainant, but also an agent of the raiding party. When the Magistrate, turned up and questioned the appellant, he gave his version of the occurrence and produced the currency notes without any hesitation. His person is fully supported by Muhammad Amin. I am impressed riot only by the context of the evidence of this witness but also by the fact that as he belonged to a different village, the appellant was not likely to have known .about his presence in Dulwaly if he had riot really come there that time.

7. The raiding Magistrate was a Naib‑Tehsildar of only two years service. He admitted that he was invested with magisterial powers in November or December 1966 i.e. a few days or a month before the raid. He also admitted fiat it was his first raid and, therefore, De took the guidance of Muhammad Ismail P. W. (D. S. P.) who was then Circle Officer, Anti‑Corruption Establishment. He went out of his way to record the statements of Muhammad Amin D. W., Nihal Din and Allah Wasaya P. Ws, as if he was either an Investigating Officer or a trial Court.

8. To sum up: There is nothing except the statement of the com plainant about the alleged demand or settlement of a bribe. Same is the case about passing of money as a bribe with the only difference that the complainant's tenant also supported him. Cut this would not make much difference to the case. This complainant stated in Exh. 9'. C. that the appellant had caused a heavy loss to him. He stated in Court that the appellant was responsible for recovery of possession of lot No. 7 by A Muhammad Hussain. If it was so, the appellant would not have accepted a poultry sum of Rs. 40 for helping him. He conceded that ha had no scope "or any grievance about the identity or possession of all the three lots. His only grievance was that the appellant would not assist him in getting lot No. 7 vacated front Muhammad Hussain by putting illegal pressure on heat. He could have decoyed the appellant and Muhammad Amin D. W., to Dhabwali and stage-manage the passing of money as a bribe. The appellant gave his version of the incidence without delay arid he was supported by Muhammad Amin D. W. Even if this defence was ignored, it would not necessarily imply that the version of the complainant was correct. The inexperience of the raiding Magistrate and the faulty procedure adopted by him under the guidance of a senior Police Officer of the Anti-Corruption Department, detracted from the value of his proceedings. A reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant cannot, therefore be excluded. I therefore, give him the benefit of doubt and acquit him. He is on bail and is discharged from his bail bond.

Appeal allowed.