MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus THE STATE
These two Criminal Appeals Nos. 620 of 1981 by Muhammad Siddiq and 624 of 1981 by Muhammad Hassan appellants arise from the judgment of learned Special Judge (Central) Lahore whereby he on 16‑11‑1981 convicted them under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced them to 2 years' R.I. and one year R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000 and 3,000, in default thereof further R.I. for six months' R.I. each, respectively, I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.
2. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that the trial Court hurriedly decided the case without having taken the trouble of recording the statements of the Magistrate and the Inspector. I feel inclined to send back the case to the trial Court. therefore, I need not to discuss the prosecution case and the evidence of the parties, I find that this was a raid case wherein the evidence of the Magistrate and the Inspector was very important but the trial Court closed the evidence without sound and cogent reasons. The reasons given by it in pare. No.7 of the judgment are as under:‑
"The case of the prosecution with regard to the evidence of Raja Muhammad Ayub and Magistrate Hameed Amjad was closed on 13‑9‑1981. The first witness could not be served because his whereabouts were not known to the prosecution. The learned P.P. requested for short adjournment to produce the Magistrate. It was told that summons were sent to the Magistrate at Rawalpindi where he was serving at that time. A tele-printer message was also given to him but his request was turned down because no sufficient cause was shown for the non‑service of that witness. The prosecution agency did not care to bring to his notice the sufficient cause for which the witness was not served or summons was not received back from Rawalpindi."
To my mind, the reasons are not only unsound but also ridiculous. He did not care to take coercive measures to procure the attendance of the witnesses. Amjad Hameed P.W. was a Magistrate and he was posted at Rawalpindi. It was not much difficult to procure his attendance. The manner in which the evidence of the important witnesses like Magistrate and the Inspector has been closed has to be disapproved.
3. For what has been stated above the appeals are accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court for re‑trial according to law. He shall take coercive measures to procure the attendance of the witnesses and shall give the prosecution at least three opportunities to produce the witnesses. The appellants will remain on bail till the conclusion of the trial.
M. A. K. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.