BARKAT ALI Versus STATE
Barkat Ali son of Khan Muhammad was tried by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore Camp at Sheikhupura who convicted and sentenced him vide the impugned judgment, dated 11-7-1991 to undergo 15 months' R.I. and fine of Rs.10,000 in default whereof to suffer 5 months' R.I. under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), P.CA., 1947. Out of the amount of fine, if recovered, P.W. Ahmad Yar shall be paid Rs.3,000, P.W. Salabat shall be paid Rs.1,000 and P.W. Mian Khan shall be paid Rs.4,000. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment.
2. The appellant was working as Consolidation Patwari, Halqa Mirpur Martian, District Sheikhupura in the year 1985. Ahmad Yar P.W.1, Salabat P.W.2, and Mian Khan P.W.3, made a joint complaint Exh.P.W.1/1 and on the basis of the same F.I.R. Exh.P.W.8/2 was recorded at Police Station Anti --Corruption, Sheikhupura under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. The appellant was challaned and sent up for trial and a charge under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), P.CA., 1947 was framed to which he denied and pleaded not guilty.
4. The prosecution examined 8 P.Ws. in all to substantiate its case. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 in the complaint Exh.P.W.l/1 have alleged that the appellant during consolidation 'proceedings had received thousands of rupees as illegal gratification from them and Massan, Amanullah, Aslam, Said and Sadiq. Ahmad Yar P.W.1, Salabat P.W.2 and Mian Khan P.W.3, stated that the appellant had received illegal gratification from them to help them in the consolidation proceedings. Muhammad Anwar P.W.4, Retired Qanoongo had produced the relevant record. Ghulam Yasin P.W.5 had not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile. P.W.6 Muhammad Riaz, Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption had partly investigated the case and secured the relevant record. P.W.7 Muhammad Ashraf Baig, Handwriting Expert had submitted his report Exh.P.W.7/1 and P.W.8 Muhammad Rafiq, Inspector had recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.W.8/2, on the receipt of order Exh.P.W.8/1 from the Deputy Commissioner.
5. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. he denied the prosecution evidence against him and stated that he was innocent, the consolidation scheme was approved by the higher officers and thereafter P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 demanded that their possession and allotment should not be changed which was refused. He produced Atta Muhammad D.W.1, Rehman D.W.2 land-owners of Mauza Mirpur Miman, who stated about the innocence of the appellant. The appellant had not appeared as his own witness in defence.
5. The learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence on record had sentenced the appellant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The complaint Exh.P.W.l/1 contains the name of Massan and also Amanullah, Aslam, Said and Sadiq, from whom allegedly the appellant received illegal gratification, who had not been produced as P.Ws. P.W.1 Ahmad Yar stated that he had paid illegal gratification to the appellant. P.W.5 Ghulam Yasin had not supported the prosecution. P.W.2 Salabat stated that he had paid illegal gratification to the appellant in presence of Yasin P.W.5 (since declared hostile) and Said P.W. (given up) as well as in presence of Mian Khan P.W.3. P.W.3 Mian Khan stated that he had paid illegal gratification to the appellant in presence of Said P.W. (not produced). P.W.5 Ghulam Yasin (since declared hostile) and Salabat (P.W.2) had not stated that he had paid illegal gratification to the appellant in presence of Mian Khan.
6. No exact date was mentioned in the complaint Exh.P.W.l/1 on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.P.W.8/2 was recorded about the date on which the alleged illegal gratification was paid. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 all stated during cross-examination that the Additional Commissioner had visited the village and stayed in Ali Judge Rest House, where they were summoned but neither they made oral complaint nor in writing about the receipt of illegal gratification by the appellant from them. It is also pertinent to mention here that neither the complainant-party moved the higher authorities nor filed any complaint against consolidation proceedings. They have stated that they' had paid the alleged illegal gratification to the appellant about 13/14 months earlier to the submission of complaint Exh.P.W.l/1 before the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura which was marked to the Anti-Corruption Department for action.
7. Pursuant to the above discussion I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt and giving the benefit of doubt acquit the appellant of the charge. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
N.H.Q./B-121/L
Appeal accepted.