Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 31‑J of 1985, heard on 11th December, 1985.

‑‑‑S.165‑A‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑Accused while in police custody allegedly offered bribe to two Constables for his escape‑‑Two Constables supporting prosecution‑‑No independent witness produced‑‑Witness cited by prosecution, appearing in defence‑‑Independent witnesses supporting defence version‑‑Corroboration of statements of two Constables, held, was very much needed for safe administration of justice which was not forthcoming and accused acquitted in circumstances.

Appellant through Jail.

Mian Nawaz for State.

Date of hearing: 11th December, 1985.

This Criminal Appeal through Jail arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he, on 31‑8‑1985 convicted Sana Ullah appellant under section 165‑A, P. P. C. and sentenced him to 3 years, R.I. and a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default thereof 6 months' R.I.

2. The appellant was an under‑trial prisoner. The charge against him was that on 24‑7‑1980 while in custody of Mushtaq Ahmad and Ghulam Haider Constables, who were taking him for his production before the Magistrate had offered Rs. 10,000 to them as illegal gratification for his escape from custody. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Mushtaq Ahmad and Ghulam Haider, ECs, ‑P.Ws. have supported the allegations. They stated that Sana Ullah while in their custody had offered Rs. 10,000 to them for his escape from the custody. Since they were not agreeable, therefore, they produced the accused before the Officer concerned alongwith Rs. 10,000. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. His plea was that Rs. 10,000 were given to him by Mehmood Alam D. W. for payment of fee to Mehmood Hanif Advocate. In defence he produced 7 witnesses. Mehmood Alam and Mehmood Hanif Advocate have appeared in defence and have supported the defence version.

5. I have examined the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. I find that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as, no independent witness from the public has supported the two police constables. Behram Khan D.W. was originally a prosecution witness. He was given up by the prosecution. He appeared in defence and refused to support the prosecution case. Mehmood Hanif Advocate D.W.6, who appears to be an independent witness, has supported the defence version. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I arts of the view that for the safe administration of justice, the corroboration o the statement of the two police officials namely Mushtaq Ahmad an Ghulam Haider is very much needed which I do not see in the case in hand.

6. For what has been stated above, while giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.

S.A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.