GHULAM NABI Versus THE STATE
The appellant was convicted for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by the learned Senior Special Judge Punjab, Lahore camp at Kasur vide his‑order; dated 13‑9‑1983. He was sentenced to a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo R.I. for a period of one year. It was directed that out of the fine, if realised, Rs.4,000 will be paid to Mansha complainant to compensate his loss. The appellant has also been dismissed from service on account of this conviction. He' has challenged his dismissal in Writ Petition No. 1998 of 1984 which is being disposed of through separate orders.
2. The appellant, then a Sub‑Inspector of Police, was posted at Police Station Bhai Pheru in April, 1978 when, according to the prosecution, he received Rs.900 as illegal gratification to release Mansha who had been arrested in a false case of theft of a buffalo. A charge under section 218, P.P.C. was also framed against the appellant with regard to F.I.R. No.100 in which Ilyas P.W. was arrested who, it is stated, led to the recovery of buffalo from Mansha P.W. The F.I.R. No. 100 was cancelled after about ,a week and Ilyas was discharged. Muhammad Abdullah Head Constable was also accused of the offence alongwith the appellant but he was acquitted by the trial Court as it was found that he did not receive any share of the money and was acting only on the direction of the appellant being his subordinate. The charge under section 218 was not proved.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant on the ground that the case against the appellant was false and that it was brought on account of the enmity of Rana Phool Khan, an influential person of the area. It was also contended that the sanction for prosecution was defective.
4. There is no defect in the sanction for prosecution. It has been granted by the competent authority in accordance with the amendment in rules of 1980. There is no merit in the assertion that the Provincial Government could act only through the delegatee of year 1978 when the offence was allegedly committed.
5. On facts the trial Court has come to the conclusion that Rana Phool Khan had enmity with the appellant and this conclusion finds sufficient support from the evidence. The trial Court has, however, found no material to connect Rana Phool Khan with the witnesses for prosecution. It is this finding which is being assailed in this appeal.
6. The prosecution case is that Ilyas P.W. led to the recovery of a buffalo from Mansha P. W. and for securing the release of Mansha, Rs.900 were paid to the appellant. Mansha and Ilyas and a few others have supported the prosecution. The others included Boota, a brother of Mansha and three of his co‑villagers. While there is no direct connection between Mansha etc. and Rana Phool Khan, Ilyas P.W. appears to be Rana Phool Khan's man. He appeared in the Court of Mr. Rafiq Dad P.W.21 Magistrate with an Advocate son of Rana Phool Khan. It cannot be denied that the role played by Ilyas P.W. 7 was not insignificant. He has also old business relations with Mansha P.W. Mansha and Ilyas P.W. are, therefore, both linked with Rana Phool Khan. The learned Special Judge was thus, not justified in holding that Rana Phool Khan's enmity with the appellant did not travel to other witnesses. On the contrary it shows that this enmity is all pervasive.
7. The deal was allegedly struck between the P.Ws. and Abdullah Head Constable. The money was also paid to him, who later handed over the amount to the appellant in presence of the witnesses. There is a gap here. Abdullah was apparently negotiating on behalf of the appellant, without his personal participation, at any stage. The appellant was staying back perhaps to protect himself. It is, therefore, not reasonable to believe that he should suddenly expose himself and, call four persons only to receive the amount from Abdullah in their presence. The prosecution story thus lacks confidence.
8. Considering the evidence and the above discussion, the charge of receiving illegal gratification cannot be sustained. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges against him.
M. A. K.
Appeal accepted.