MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus THE STATE
Criminal Appeals Nos.200 of 1982 and 204 of 1982 have been directed against the impugned judgment, dated 17-10-1982 of Ch. Faiz Aslam, Special Judge Central, Rawalpindi, whereby the appellant Muhammad Yousuf Rathore was convicted and sentenced under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000, in default whereof to suffer further R.I. for one month. Mst. Mahmooda Butt appellant was convicted under section 5(2).of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.500 in default whereof to undergo R.I. for 15 days. Both the appeals shall be decided by this judgment.
3. Briefly the prosecution case is that F.I.R. Exh.P.W.5/2 was, recorded on 5-2-1976 by one Noor Sultan, Inspector, F.I.A., Rawalpindi at Gujrat, who died in 1976 with the allegation that after receipt of reliable information that a telephone had been installed illegally at the residence of appellant Mst. Mehmooda Butt, Inspection Assistant Family Planning, Gujrat with the connivance of appellant Muhammad Yousuf Rathore, Engineer Supervisor, T&T Department, Gujrat. On of said information, raiding party comprising of the complainant, Raja Muhammad Suleman. S.I., Muhammad Hussain F.C., A.C.E., Gujrat and Muhammad Afsar, A.S.I., Police Post Khawajgan Gujrat was organised. The raid was conducted at the residence of appellant Mst. Mehmooda Butt under. the supervision of P.W.1 Rana Badr-uz Zaman, Naib-Tehsildar, Rawalpindi. Telephone set No.4015 with telephone wire was found connected at the residence of Mst. Mehmooda Butt in upper storey from the telephone pole in working order. Appellant Mst. Mehmooda Butt could not produce any proof about the installation of telephone. It was. also alleged that the appellant Mst. Mehmooda Butta had disclosed that the said telephone was installed by appellant Muhammad Yousuf. The said telephone alongwith its wire was secured vide memo. P.W.1/2. On inquiry from the Department it was revealed that no telephone connection was sanctioned to Mst. Mehmooda Butt and the said telephone was being used by her with effect from 12-10-1975 with the knowledge and connivance of Muhammad Yousuf Rathore appellant. After receipt of sanction the appellant Muhammad Yousuf alongwith appellant Mst. Mehmooda Butt was challaned and sent up for trial. A charge under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with section 420, P.P.C. was framed, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined 6 P.Ws. in all to substantiate its case. P.W.1 Badruz Zaman while working as Naib-Tehsildar, Gujrat on 4-2-1976 supervised the raid and from the residence of appellant Mst. Mehmooda Butt secured telephone set No.4015 in working condition. The raid report is Exh.P.W.l/1. The telephone set was secured vide memo. Exh.P.W.1/2. He recorded the statement of appellant Mst. Mehmooda Butt Exh.P.W.1/3 immediately after the raid. He also secured- advice note register from the Telephone Department Exh.P.W.l/4 vide recovery memo. Exh.P.W.1/5. P.W.2 Muhammad Shari, Divisional Engineer, T&T Department stated that he had no knowledge that an illegal telephone connection had been installed at the residence of Mst. Mehmooda Butt, appellant at the instance of Muhammad Yousuf Rathore, appellant. P.W.3 Muhammad Yaseen, Assistant Engineer, T&T Department stated that appellant Muhammad Yousuf Rathore was serving during the days of occurrence in the Telephone Department as Engineer Supervisor, Internal in Gujrat and if a Telephone is allotted to the employees of T&T Department, the same is mentioned in the advice Note Register and there was no entry in it and Telephone No.4015 was allotted to Engineer Supervisor Truck, Gujrat and during the investigation he produced Advice Note Register P.W.1/4 before the police which was secured vide memo. Exh.P.W.l/5 attested by him. P.W.4 Javed lqbal, resident of Gujrat city had stated that Mst. Mehmooda Butt, appellant was living with her parents at a little distance from his house and was married to some other person. P.W.5 Muhammad Khan S.I., F.I.A., Rawalpindi, appeared and identified the handwriting and signatures of Noor Sultan on application P.W.5/1. Noor Sultan had died. P.W.5 also identified the signatures on memos. P.W.1/2 and P.W.1/5 as of Noor Sultan. He also identified the F.I.R. drafted by Ch. Ahmad Khan, D.S.P. compulsorily retired from service. P.W.6 Munsab Dar S.I. stated that he had partly investigated the case and after the receipt of necessary sanction for prosecution of appellant Muhammad Yousuf Rathore, he submitted the challan.
5. Appellant Muhammad Yousuf Rathore when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence against him and stated that Mst. Mehmooda was already a married lady, but she was his first cousin and while working as Engineering Supervisor Trunk during the days of occurrence he checked official calls of operators trunk. On the complaint of the appellant, many of them were transferred and charge-sheeted and they nursed grudge against him for the said reason. Moreover, the telephone operators used to give monthly bribe to the previous Engineering Supervisor Trunks, and that practice was stopped when he took over the charge. He further stated that he was innocent. Telephone No.4015 was allotted to him in his official capacity at his residence and he was putting up with Mst. Mehmooda Butt, his cousin in those days and he got installed that telephone at her residence for his official use. The appellant Mst. Mehmooda Butt when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence and stated that appellant Muhammad Yousuf Rathore was her first cousin and had strained relations with his subordinate staff because of certain complaints against them. The said staff cooked up a false case against him and involved her also because of her relationship with the co-appellant. D.W.1 Muhammad Islam, Head Telephone Operator during the days of occurrence was serving at Gujrat Telephone Exchange. The appellant Muhammad Yousuf Rathore had dual charge and was working as Supervisor Trunks and Technical Supervisor, and had got installed two telephones officially, one at his residence and the other at the residence of co-appellant Mst. Mehmooda Butt. He stated that once he visited the house of Mst. Mehmooda Butt and had found Telephone No.4015 locked.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned State counsel and have perused the record. P.W.2 Muhammad Shafi, Divisional Engineering during cross-examination stated that he had no knowledge that telephone at the residence of appellant Mst. Mehmooda Butt was sanctioned or not and according to Register Exh.P.W.1/4 Telephone No.4015 was allotted in the name of Telephone Engineer Trunks. P.W.3 Muhammad Yaseen, Assistant Engineer, T&T Department during cross-examination stated that entries in the Advice Note Register Exh.P.W.l/4 were made by Engineer Supervisor Internal. Full address of telephone allottees of T&T Department was not mentioned in the said register. Engineer Supervisor can shift telephone from one place to another even without his knowledge and permission, and this had been done in the present case. Appellant Muhammad Yousuf Rathore was competent to keep two telephones at his residence and he had received no report from the said Supervisor till the day of raid that a telephone had been installed at the known address. P.W.4 Javaid Iqbal stated that appellant Mst. Mehmooda Butt was first cousin of her co-appellant.
7. It has been brought on record by the defence that the appellant Muhammad Yousuf Rathore officially got installed two telephones for his personal use and even the addresses of the places where the telephones were installed would not be mentioned necessarily in the Advice Note Register. No evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution that the appellant had gained illegally anything from the installation of said telephone at the residence of co-appellant Mst. Mehmooda Butt. No violation of rules has been proved on record by the prosecution against the appellants. Appellant Muhammad Yousuf Rathore could otherwise install telephone at the residence of co appellant Mst. Mehmooda Butt as has been clearly stated by P.W.3 in his cross-examination who was Divisional Engineer of T&T Department. No monetary loss occurred to the Department and no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to establish that the Government had suffered any loss by the installation of said telephone at the residence of co-appellant. It is evident from the prosecution evidence that the appellant Muhammad Yousuf Rathore could install two telephone connections at different addresses without mentioning the same in the Advice Note Register.
8. Pursuant to the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt against the appellants. Giving them benefit of doubt, I acquit them of the charge. Appellant Muhammad Yousuf Rathore is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.
N.H.Q./M-800/L Appeals accepted.