MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus THE STATE
The present criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment, dated 5-1-1992, whereby the learned Special Judge Central, Faisalabad, had convicted the appellant under section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs.500 or in default thereof to further suffer R.I. for 15 days.
2. Briefly stated, the case against the appellant Muhammad Sharif, was that he, being a lineman in WAPDA, demanded a sum of Rs.250 as illegal gratification for the replacement of defective meter of Muhammad Maqsood complainant, but agreed to take Rs.200 as such, out of which the complainant had paid Rs.100 in advance and the balance amount of Rs.100 was to be paid to him in a cold drink shop in front of a tailor shop situated in Ghulam Muhammad bad, Faisalabad. In the meantime, the complainant reported the matter to Muhammad Bashir, Inspector, F.I.A., on whose application a raiding party headed by Naseer Khusro Jafri, Magistrate 1st Class, was constituted. The complainant produced seven currency notes P.1 to P.7 before the Magistrate, which were returned to him, after noting down their serial numbers, with the direction to pass on the same to the appellant. Accordingly, the raiding party reached the tailor shop and the complainant went to the office of WAPDA. After a short while, Muhammad Sharif accused/appellant along with Abdul Majeed, Assistant Lineman reached there on a motorcycle and went inside the shop opposite to the tailor shop. Meanwhile, the complainant also reached there on a bicycle and went inside the said shop. Soon, thereafter, the complainant and the appellant emerged from the shop and the former passed on the tainted amount to the latter, which act was seen by the raiding party. When the appellant again went inside the shop, the raiding party went there and the Magistrate asked him for handing over the tainted money, but he did not do so. At that very time, the complainant picked up the tainted currency notes from the floor near the feet of Abdul Majeed, Assistant Lineman, and handed over the same to the Magistrate, and the same were found to be the notes that had been given to the complainant to pass on to the appellant, on comparison.
3. The Magistrate recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant Muhammad Maqsood and the statement of Muhammad Sharif accused/appellant, who had denied the recovery of the tainted money. Consequently, on the report of the Magistrate, duly endorsed by the Assistant Director, F.I.A., the present case was registered, vide F.I.R. No.35, dated 2-5-1984. After usual investigation, the accused/appellant was challaned to the Court.
4. At the trial, the prosecution had examined as many as five witnesses. P.W.1 Nehmat Ali, S.-I., who was a member of the raiding party, supported the prosecution case, but conceded that he did not hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. P.W.2 Muhammad Maqsood, was the complainant of the case, whereas P.W.3 Nasir Khushro Jafri, Magistrate 1st Class, had supervised the raiding party, who had also admitted that he did not hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. P.W.5 Muhammad Bashir, Inspector, F.I.A. was also a member of the raiding party and had also partly investigated the instant case, whereas P.W.4 Zulfiqar Khan, Inspector, Anti-Corruption had completed the investigation and challaned the accused/appellant. .
5. The appellant in his statement under the provisions of section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegation against him and claimed to have been falsely involved in this case at the instance of one Hameed, member of a fake Mohsaba Tanzeem. He had produced a photo stat copy of Meter Change order as Exh.D.A. in his defence; but did not get recorded his own statement under the provisions of section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
6. The learned trial Court, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant and the State were heard at length and the record of the case perused minutely with their assistance.
8. It has been taken notice of that as contended on behalf of the appellant, the tainted money in question was not recovered from the person of or on the behest of the appellant, but from the floor near the feet of a third person, and that also by the complainant, Muhammad Maqsood P.W.2 and it was the said complainant who handed it over to P.W.1 Nehmat Ali, S.-I. Furthermore, it stands admitted by P.W.1 Nehmat Ali, S.-I. and P.W.3 Nasir Khusro Jafri, Magistrate 1st Class, that they had not heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant, being too far away to be able to do that. It stands further conceded by the said two prosecution witnesses that they were at a considerable distance when they claimed to have seen the complainant passing on the tainted money to the appellant, which fact by itself creates serious doubt about their claim to be in a position to definitely state that the amount passed on to the appellant was in fact the tainted money; and the benefit of doubt thus arising can only go to the appellant. Therefore, it is hereby held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond ? reasonable doubt.
9.Pursuant to the above discussion, the present criminal appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment, dated 5-1-1992 is set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of the offences charged. He is on bail; his bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
N.H.Q./M-134/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.