Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FAIZ RASUL VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Abdul Majeed Tiwana Title: FAIZ RASUL vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 1107 of 1988 Date of Judgment:1991-10-15 Reported As: 1992 P Cr. L J 942 Result: Revision accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was a Supervisor in WASA, Faisalabad Development Authority, was tried by the learned Special Judge Anti --Corruption, Sargodha, Camp at Faisalabad on the charge of receiving a sum of Rs.10,350 from Muhammad Sharif P.W. As Government dues for leverage connections and providing him seven forged receipts indicating the deposit of the money with the Bank. Muhammad Sharif (P.W.9) had in turn collected this amount from some persons of other industrial concerns who were interested in getting the severage connection and had passed on the money to the petitioner, as their representative. 2. Vide judgment, dated 24-11-1988, he was acquitted of the charge under section 468, P.P.C. But he was convicted under section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 and sentenced to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to further undergo six months' R.I. 3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution examined a number of persons to prove the payment of the money by them to the petitioner through Muhammad Sharif P.W. But none of them supported the prosecution case and in these circumstances he could- not be convicted and sentenced for receiving illegal gratification, particularly when the allegedly forged receipts issued by him to Muhammad Sharif P.W. Were not brought on the record due to the same having been lost by the Investigating Officer. 4. The perusal of the record shows that none of the seven prosecution witnesses (P.Ws.l to 7) supported the prosecution story of Muhammad Sharif P.W., having received different sums from them and paying the same to the A petitioner as an illegal gratification for his undertaking to get them sanctioned sewerage connections. This being so, the solitary statement of Muhammad Sharif P.W. In this connection, which too did not inspire confidence, was not sufficient to base conviction
---
## Page 2
of the petitioner under section 5(2) of Act, 1947. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted. Being already on bail, he stands discharged of his liability under the bail bond.