FAZAL AHMAD Versus STATE

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, whereby he on 6th August, 1976 while acquitting Abdul Ghafoor co-accused convicted Fazal Ahmad Qureshi, the appellant under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default thereof to further R. I. for 9 months.

2. The appellant was working as Ziledar, Halqa Bhai Pheru. The charge against him is that he demanded and then accepted Rs. 1,000 from the villagers for widening the outlet and not levying any TAWAN upon them. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Malik Abdul Latif P. W. 1, Qutab Din P. W. 2, Sh. Muhammad Safdar P. W. 3, Allah Ditta P. W. 4, Yasin P. W. 5, Khalil Ahmad P. W. 6, Tai Din P. W. 7, Asif Hussain P. W. 8, Muhammad Ali P. W. 9, Ghulam Jillani P. W. 10, Ameer Ali P. W. 11, Raja Muhammad lqbal S. I., P. W. 12 and Faqir Ullah Khan, Inspector F. I. A., P. W. 13 who supported the charge against the appellant.

4. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. denied all the incriminating circumstances and raised the plea of false implication on account of enmity. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and than the evidence produced against the appellant being interested one may not be acted upon without corroboration.

Conversely, the learned counsel for the State leas supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that it is not a raid case; that admittedly, the villagers P. Ws. against whom the appellant had got a case registered, were annoyed with him and that there is no independent corroboration of the statements of these witnesses. I further find that trial Court has given flimsy reasons for convicting the appellant. In operative part of the judgment it is stated:-

"I would not have given much importance to the oral statements of the witnesses but have been much impressed of the fact that the accused Fazal Ahmad had made a malicious and wrong report to entangle the innocent villagers in. a criminal case when they bad done no wrong. He also made a wrong report of TAWAN to the Canal Authorities who also sided with him although the authorities know that no damage bad been done to the outlet No. 114277/R. I am of the opinion that the prosecution case appears to be a correct one and that the accused Fazal Ahmad Ziledar has most dishonestly obtained, rather coerced the villagers to part with Rs. 1,000 and has thus committed the offence under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947."

The reasoning of the trial Court as reproduced above shows that he convicted the appellant because he was very much impressed that the appellant had made a false report against the villagers, which, to my mind, is no ground to believe the witnesses. It, rather, shows that the witnesses had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant.

7. For what has been stated above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant. Giving him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail, the bail bonds stand discharged.

S. G. D. Appeal allowed.