NOOR BEGUM Versus ABDUL RASHID

Noor Begum, complainant /petitioner, has filed this revision against the order of Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Gujranwala, dated 3‑10‑1985 whereby the respondents, namely, Abdul Rashid, Naib‑Office Kanungo and Muhammad Yousuf Patwari have been acquitted under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C.

2. According to prosecution Noor Begum approached Abdul Rashid respondent for obtaining a certified copy of R.L.II for which he demanded bribe. She paid him Rs.100 and promised to pay remaining Rs.50 later. She reported against Abdul Rashid, respondent, to Mushtaq Ahmad, S.C.O. P.W. on 12‑3‑1984 who recorded her statement Exh.P.A. and on the basis of it got a case registered under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, at Police Station A.C.E., Gujranwala. He then made an application to the Deputy Commissioner for detailing a Magistrate to supervise the raid, Shafqat Ahmad M.I.C., was deputed to supervise the raid. The raiding Magistrate recorded statement Exh.P.B. of Noor Begum and having noted down the number of a currency note of Rs.50 returned it to her for passing it on to Abdul Rashid, respondent, and then make the appointed signal. The raiding party waited outside the tehsil office and Noor Begum, petitioner, went ahead. Having handed over the tainted currency note to Abdul Rashid, respondent, she made the appointed signal. The raiding Magistrate and the other members entered the Tehsil Office, Gujranwala and met Abdul Rashid respondent near the gate whom the raiding Magistrate asked to produce the bribe money. The appellant denied to have received any bribe and 'stated that a lady had thrown a fifty rupee note on his table and disappeared. Meanwhile Riaz Ahmad P.W. met the Magistrate and informed that the currency note was received by Abdul Rashid respondent. A little later Muhammad Yousuf, respondent, a Patwari of the office of Kanungo, Gujranwala, told the Magistrate that he had picked up a currency note lying on the table. He produced the same before the raiding Magistrate which was taken into possession under memo. Exh.P.D. The raiding Magistrate then recorded supplementary statement EXh.P.C. of Noor Begum, petitioner, and also that of Abdul Rashid and Muhammad Yousuf, respondents. In his statement Muhammad Yousuf (respondent) stated that in his presence the petitioner approached Abdul Rashid and placed a fifty rupee currency note on his table which he threw away from the table. He picked up the note so that somebody else might not take it away. He further stated that he wanted to return it to the lady (petitioner) when found. The raiding Magistrate then drew up his report and handed over the same to Mushtaq Ahmad S.C.O. for further action. After usual investigation and obtaining sanction for their prosecution challaned both the respondents to Court.

3. Learned trial Court framed a charge under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) P.C.A., 1947 against both the respondents who pleaded not guilty. Statement of Noor Begum was recorded as P.W.1 who deposed that Abdul Rashid, respondent, had demanded from her Rs.50 as bribe far issuing copy of R.L.II and she reported against him to Thanedar of A.C.E. She was then taken to the Magistrate who recorded her statement and then sent her for handing over currency note of Rs.50 to Abdul Rashid respondent. She gave the same to him and signalled to the raid party. But she denied all knowledge as to from whom the currency note was recovered. At this the Public Prosecutor with permission of Court cross‑examined her. She denied that she had stated before the raiding Magistrate in Exh.P.C. that the tainted currency note was recovered from Muhammad Yousaf, respondent No. 2. During cross‑examination by defence counsel she admitted that she had moved two applications, against Akhtar Patwari but denied that they were proved false. She admitted that in the application moved against Akhtar she had accused Abdul Rashid respondent to be not behaving properly with her. After going through the statement of this witness the trial Court formed the view that there was no probability of the accused persons being convicted of any offence even if the remaining evidence was recorded because the raiding Magistrate as well as the raiding Inspector did not see the passing of the tainted money to Abdul Rashid Patwari nor they overheard any conversation between the complainant and Abdul Rashid accused. Learned Court also observed that the statement of Riaz Ahmad P.W. could not advance the case of prosecution and consequently applying section 249‑A, Cr.P.C., acquitted the respondents, hence this revision.

4. I have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record of the case with the assistance of learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The record does not show that the complainant/petitioner had given any application. for obtaining a certified copy of R.L.II. It is not proved if she owned any property in the Halqa of Abdul Rashid, Naib‑Office Kanungo. Furthermore, Riaz Ahmad P.Ws statement is in direct conflict with the statement of the petitioner (Exh .P.C.) wherein she clearly stated that Abdul Rashid, respondent, had thrown the, currency note saying that he would supply the copy to her.

6. The spontaneous statements made by both the respondents are to the effect that when Noor Begum tried to hand over the tainted currency note to Abdul Rashid, he had thrown it away and gone our of his office. The factum of throwing away of the tainted currency note by Abdul Rashid, respondent, is admitted by Noor Begum petitioner, also in her statement Exh.P.C. which she made immediately after the raid. This almost' supports the defence version. Having perused the raid report and also the evidence proposed to be led by the prosecution against the respondent I am of the view that learned trial Court was perfectly right in saying that there was no possibility of the respondents being convicted on the charge framed against them. This Court is always slow to interfere with an order of acquittal in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. For what is stated above, there does not exist any justification for interfering with the acquittal order. Consequently, this revision is dismissed being without merit.

M.Y.H./N‑106/L Petition dismissed.