Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1967, heard on 1^st April, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860). Ss. 161/478 & 471‑‑Accused who was Police Constable allegedly demanded illegal gratification for issuing driving licence to complainant and subsequently delivered him a forged licence‑‑Accused was acquitted by Trial Court of charges under S. 468/471, P.P.C.‑‑Complainant was only person who made statement about acceptance of bribe money by accused‑‑Complainant had not reported matter to Anti‑Corruption Establishment before passing on bribe money‑‑Case not of raid‑‑Complainant not stating that money was received by accused as illegal gratification‑‑Prosecution, held, failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt‑‑Accused acquitted in circumstances.

Ijaz Hussain Batalvi for Appellant.

S. D. Qureshi for the State.

Date of hearing: 1^st April, 1986.

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Multan, whereby he on 29‑5‑1967 while acquitting Muhammad Saeed appellant of the charges under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C., convicted him under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and sentenced him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.200 or in default thereof further R.I. for six months.

2. The appellant was a Police Constable. The charge against him was that he demanded Rs.100 from Muhammad Ramzan complainant as illegal gratification for issuing licence for driving light vehicles and subsequently delivered him a forged driving licence purporting to have signed by Muhammad Ramzan, D.S.P. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses in all. Ch. Muhammad Ramzan, D.S.P. P.W. 1, stated that driving licence Exh. P. A. was not signed by him and the signatures on the same were not in his hand. Muhammad Ramzan complainant P.W. 2 was a cleaner under the Government Transport Service. He wanted driving licence for light vehicles. He approached the appellant who told him that a licence for driving heavy vehicle could be issued on payment of Rs.100 as fee. The witness paid him Rs.100 on the next day and got driving licence from him which was subsequently found to be forged one. Nazir Ahmad Head Constable P.W. 3 stated that driving licence Exh. P.A. was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer in his presence. Mr. Abdul Majid Jamil, Magistrate P.W. 4 stated that specimen writings of Muhammad Saeed Ahmad Constable marked C, C/1, C/2, C/3 and C/4 were taken in his presence in Court and were attested by him. Muhammad Yaqub Butt, Handwriting Expert appeared as P.W. 5. He stated that driving licence Exh. P.A. was sent to him for comparing its handwritten portions with the specimen writing of the appellant on five sample sheets marked 'C' and C/1 to C/4. On a close examination he came to the conclusion that the disputed writing were written in the hand of the same person. He further stated that he could not form any definite opinion about the signatures purporting to be of the D.S.P. / Licensing Authority. Ch. Rahim Bakhsh Gill P.W. 6 investigated the case.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced two witnesses. D.W. 2 Mr. Zaka A. Malik is a handwriting expert. He stated that, they questioned writing on driving licence Exh. P.A. was not in the hand of Muhammad Saeed appellant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no reliable evidence of the acceptance of Rs.100 as illegal gratification from the complainant by the appellant. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the appellant has already been acquitted of the charges under section 468/471, P.P.C., that as far the allegations of acceptance of bribe money of Rs.100, Muhammad Ramzan complainant alone has made statement that the complainant had not reported the matter to the Anti‑Corruption Establishment before passing on Rs.100 to the appellant; that there was no raid proceedings and that Muhammad Ramzan has categorically stated that the appellant had demanded Rs.100 as a fee for issuing driving licence of light vehicles and that he has not stated about any illegal gratification. For all these reasons, I am of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. For what has been said above while giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charges. He stands discharged of bail bonds.

H.A.K. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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