MUHAMMAD KHALID Versus THE STATE
The appellant was charged with an offence under section 420, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, but was convicted for offence under section 409 of the P.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months with a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default of payment to suffer R.I. for one month by the Special Judge (Central), Lahore vide his judgment, dated 16-6-1991.
2. The appellant who was serving as S.T.E. at the relevant time was alleged to have received a sum of Rs.100 from Ahmad Din complainant when he was travelling on Train No.377-Up with two ladies but he did not issue tickets to the complainant. A case under section 420 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the appellant on 15-1-1986 vide F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1.
3. In support of its case the prosecution produced Muhammad Akram, S.I. as P.W.1. He stated that he had conducted raid on 377-Up Train at Railway Station Narang, District Sheikhupura on 13-12-1985 and found Ahmad Din P.W. travelling in the 1st Class Seater. He was raising noise that the appellant had not issued tickets despite receipt of Rs.30 from him. He recorded the statement of Ahmad Din Exh.PA. and then submitted his report to the Special Branch, Railway Police, Lahore. Muhammad Yousuf, H.C. appeared as P.W.2 and stated that he had taken into possession the E.F.T. book vide recovery memo. Exh.P.C. It contained 25 E.F.Ts. and the relevant one was exhibited as P.B./1. The E.F.Ts. were also shown. to have been recovered vide memo. Exh.DA. The witness was unable to explain as to why the same E.F.T. book was taken into possession on two different dates i.e. 3-3-1986 and 10-3-1986. Mir Baz Khan, D.S.P. Railways, P.W.3 had recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./1. Muhammad Iqbal P.W.4, a nephew of Ahmad Din complainant stated that he and his wife boarded the train without purchasing tickets and added that his uncle Ahmad Din was also with him. He further stated that he paid Rs.100 to him (his uncle) for purchase of tickets from the T.T. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined by P.I. He denied his knowledge about any raid conducted upon the appellant by the Crimes Branch Police. He admitted that he never stated before the police that he had paid Rs.100 to the appellant for purchase of tickets. He denied the suggestion that a raid was conducted upon the ticket less passengers and that he had levelled allegations against the appellant to save his skin. Ahmad Din appeared as P.W.5 and stated that his nephew Iqbal had given Rs.100 to the appellant for issuing tickets, who returned Rs.70 but did not issue tickets to them. He also denied the suggestion that he was travelling without ticket and after checking, levelled false allegation against the appellant to save himself. In his statement under section 342 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant denied having received Rs.30 from Ahmad Din for issuance of three tickets from Lahore to Noorkot. He further stated that Ahmad Din etc. were travelling without tickets and when they were apprehended by the checking staff, then they involved him falsely to save themselves from the legal action.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State and perused the material on the record. The evidence regarding payment of money to the appellant for purchase of tickets is not free from doubt. In his statement Exh.PA. Ahmad Din stated that he had paid Rs.100 to the S.T.E., but while appearing as P.W.5 he stated that his nephew Muhammad Iqbal had paid Rs.100 to the appellant for issuance of tickets: Thus, he himself contradicted his statement embodied in Exh.PA. So far as Muhammad Iqbal P.W.4 is concerned, he stated in his examination-in-chief that he boarded the train from Sheikhupura to Lahore with his wife and uncle Ahmad Din and that he paid money to his uncle for purchase of tickets. This clearly meant that he did not pay money to the S.T.E. He was declared hostile and then in cross-examination he changed his version and stated that he had paid Rs.100 to the appellant for the purchase of tickets. Due to this contradiction in his own statement Muhammad Iqbal P.W.4 cannot be relied upon the charge against the appellant was that he had received Rs.100 from Ahmad Din and in his examination under section 342 of Cr.P.C. he was questioned about the receipt of Rs.100 from Ahmad Din P.W.5. However, there is no evidence on the record to substantiate the said allegation. The possibility that on being found to be ticket-less by the raiding party, the complainant levelled allegation of receipt of Rs.100 by the appellant and non issuance of ticket cannot be ruled out.
5. For the foregoing discussion, I accept this appeal and set aside the I appellant's conviction and sentence and acquit him of the charge. He is already[C on bail. His bail/surety bonds stand discharged.
N.H.Q./M-1453/L ??????
Appeal accepted