MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus THE STATE

Muhammad Yousaf son of Ghulam Nabi was tried by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Central), Faisalabad, who vide his impugned judgment, dated 30-10-1989 convicted and sentenced him under section 22, Emigration Ordinance, 1979 to undergo 5 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 10,000 in default-whereof to suffer one year's R.I. The appellant has preferred this appeal to assail his conviction and sentence.

2. A case F.I.R. No.85/81 was registered at Police Station F.I.A., Faisalabad on 24-12-1981 under section 17/22, Emigration Ordinance, 1979, with the allegation that the appellant had deceitfully obtained Rs. 15,000 each from Abdul Ghafoor (P.W.1), Faqir Muhammad (P.W.2), Muhammad Bashir (P.W.3) and Muhammad Shafiq P.W. (given up) alongwith their passports and National Identity Cards in 1980. The appellant was challaned and sent up for trial and a charge under section 17/2,2, Emigration Ordinance, 1979 was framed against the appellant, to which he denied and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution examined 3 P. Ws. in all to substantiate its case. P. W.1 Abdul Qhafoor, P.W.2 Faqir Muhammad and P.W.3 Muhammad Bashir stated that they had paid Rs.15,000 each to the appellant for sending them to Saudi Arabia for employment alongwith their passports and National Identity Cards.

4. P. W.1 during cross-examination stated that he made complaint 2 years after payment of money against the appellant. Muhammad Shafiq P.W. (given up) is his real brother, P.W.2 Faqir Muhammad is his maternal-cousin, whereas P.W.3 stated during cross-examination that P.Ws.l, 2 and Muhammad Shafiq P. W. (given up) are his near relatives.

5. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence against him and stated that he had been falsely involved. He neither made statement on oath nor produced evidence in defence. The learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the appellant.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. There is unexplained delay of more than one year in l lodging the F.I.R., whereas no passport or National Identity Card of any of the P. Ws. was secured by the police. The P. Ws. are closely related to each other. No public witness had been produced and moreover the Investigating Officer although died during the course of trial, but none was produced by the, Q prosecution to testify that the F.I.R. as well as other documents placed on record were in his hand.

7., Pursuant to the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond doubt against the appellant and giving him benefit of doubt, I acquit him of the charge. The appellant is on bail, his bail) bonds are discharged.

T1.H.Q./M-1796/L Appeal accepted