MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus THE STATE

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 28-11-1990 convicted Muhammad Ramzan under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced him to six months' R.I. plus a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default four months' R.I.

2. The appellant was a Patwari of Irrigation Department. The charge against him was that he demanded Rs.2,000 from the complainant, and' received Rs.1,100 from him for redressing his grievance with respect to the Warabandi of the canal water, with respect to the land of the father of the complainant. The complainant has not mentioned in his complaint the time, date and the place, where, the amount of Rs.2,000 has been demanded by the appellant from the complainant. He has also not disclosed the place, where the illegal gratification was paid to the appellant. The case against the appellant was registered, on the direction of the Director Anti-Corruption, at the Police Station A.C.E. Sadar, Sheikhupura. The formal F.I.R. Ex.PW4/2 was recorded on 5-3-1989 at the aforementioned Police Station.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. Zahoor Ahmed complainant appeared as P.W.1 and deposed that the appellant demanded Rs 2,000 as illegal gratification, but later on, accepted Rs.1,100 in the presence of Ahmad Din (P.W.2). He did not disclose in his evidence date, time and place, where the alleged illegal gratification was demanded by the appellant and the money was paid by the complainant to him. Ahmad Din (P.W.2) supported the prosecution case, and deposed that in his presence the appellant demanded Rs.2,000 as illegal gratification from the complainant, and Rs.1,100 were paid to the appellant for the Warabandi of the canal water as bribe. Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.3) deposed that he is goldsmith, and the complainant sold him one ear-ring and one finger ring for Rs.1,140, the complainant informed him that this money is needed by him for paying illegal gratification to the appellant. Muhammad Riaz (P.W.4) is the I.O. who recorded the F.I.R., and after completing due legal formalities submitted the challan.

4. The appellant denied the charge and professed innocence. He deposed that he has been involved due to enmity and the litigation was pending between the father of the complainant and the Canal Department.

5. The appellant produced three witnesses in defence and also appeared as his own witness.

Muhammad Abdullah, Office Reader, Divisional Canal Officer, Sheikhupura appeared as D.W.1, and produced the original Parat Tarmeem Warabandi for the year 1987 prepared by the appellant and its photo copy was retained on the record as EX.DWl/1. He also produced photo copy of order of Divisional Canal Officer dated 26-7-1987 Ex. DW1/2. Muhammad Yousaf appeared as D.W.2 and deposed that Muhammad Mansha applied for the amendment of Warabandi and the complainant threatened the appellant at his Dera that if the Warabandi is not done according to his wishes, then the appellant will face dire consequences. Malik Muhammad Mansha Chairman, Union Council appeared as DW.3 and deposed that he made an application to the &E.. for the permission to construct water-course, for the benefit of his land, he placed on record a copy of the order of Divisional Canal Officer dated 26-7-1987. He further deposed that the complainant party filed a civil suit against the aforesaid order in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, which was ultimately dismissed on 10-10-1987.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended, that the complainant did not give the time, date and place, where the alleged illegal gratification was demanded by the appellant. Even the time, date and place, where the amount was allegedly received by the appellant, was not given in the complaint made to the Director A.C.E. He further submitted that name of the person was not mentioned in the complaint, in whose presence the money was paid to the appellant. The learned defence counsel referred to the certain material improvements made by the complainant in the Court, such as, name of Ahmad Din (P.W.2), in whose presence money was allegedly paid to the appellant, was not mentioned in the complaint. In the Court, the complainant deposed that the appellant demanded Rs.2,000 as illegal gratification, but agreed to receive Rs.1,100 but this fact was not mentioned in the complaint itself. He contended that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, and in view of the background of enmity, as is apparent from the defence evidence uncorroborated testimony of these two P.Ws. cannot be accepted on its face value.

In the end, the learned counsel submitted, the complainant in order to beef up his case, introduced Muhammad Iqbal goldsmith (P.W.3) to show that he sold his ornaments to collect money for giving illegal gratification to the accused, but this fact has not been mentioned in the complaint lodged by him.

7. The learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment on the same grounds, which prevailed with the learned Judge while passing the judgment.

8. I have carefully examined the record of this case, as well as the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

9. I find substantial force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is no evidence on the record to show when actually the appellant demanded the illegal gratification and when it was paid to him hence the case against the appellant is not free from doubt. There is no evidence on the record to show that actually the appellant was the person, who was competent to alter the Warabandi or could bestow any undue favour upon the complainant.

In fact, according to law, the Warabandi is sanctioned by Divisional Canal officer, the appellant being a minion of that department, could not prevail upon the higher officer to do the needful, and was not in a position to oblige the complainant. There is substantial force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that in the absence of any independent corroboration, and in the presence of the civil litigation, which started prior to the lodging of the complaint, it would be very difficult to place reliance on the bare statements of the complainant and Ahmad Din (P.W. 2), who is admittedly a party-man of the complainant, as is apparent from the certified copies of the civil suit placed on the record as Exs. D.E and DF.

Admittedly, the complainant is a party to the illegal transaction, as he is himself a bribe-giver, according to law the giving of bribe, as well as receiving of bribe, is an offence.

In the presence of this legal position, the status of the complainant, in the circumstances of the case, is no better than of an accomplice, so his uncorroborated testimony cannot be accepted. The complainant has introduced Muhammad Iqbal Goldsmith (P.W. 3) later on, just to give strength to his case, as this fact has not been mentioned in the initial complaint, as such his statement is not confidence inspiring.

10. In view of the above discussion, I find, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The appeal of the appellant is accepted. His conviction and sentence are set aside and he is acquitted. The appellant is on bail, he is discharged from his bail bond.

N.H.Q./M-2775/L' Appeal accepted.