Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 1966, decided on 18th July 1968.

S. 161 read with S. 5(2), Preven tion of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑Accused forcing complainant to give bribe‑Evidence of complainant corroborated by reliable testimony of prosecution witnesses‑Conviction of accused upheld.

Ahsanul Haq Qureshi for Appellant.

Hassan Inamullah for Addl. A.‑G. for the State.

Dates of hearing : 16th and 18th July 1968.

Shah Bux, Tapedar, has been found guilty by the Special Judge‑cum‑Enquiry Officer, Hyderabad, of having committed an offence under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947). He was sentenced to suffer one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to suffer four months' R. I. The sentences passed in this case were ordered to run concurrently with the sentences imposed on the appellant in the other two connected cases, viz. Special Cases Nos. 119 and 121 of 1964.

2. The accused was put on trial on the following charge:‑

"The allegations against you accused Shah Bakhsh are that while you were employed as Tapedar of Tapo Mango, Taluka Naushahro Feroze, during the year 1961‑62 and as such a public servant by abusing your position as such public servant in or about September 1961, demanded Rs. 800 as "illegal gratification from Lal Khan alias Lal Bakhsh Khan and accepted Rs. 360 from him as part payment for mutating S. Nos. 556, 67 and 69 in Deh Rajo Kirio, in his name in the revenue record. Thereby you have committed the offence punishable under sections 161, P. P. C. and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947."

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. he made the following statement :‑

"Lal Bux had come to me and applied for mutating his name in place of his father in the revenue records. The name of his father did not tally with the father's name already recorded in the revenue papers with me. I pointed out this fact to my superior officers so he had grudge against me. I was not authorised to mutate names in records. This was the job of Head Munshi and Mukhtiarkar."

3. The facts which led to this trial are these. The appellant was employed as a Tapedar and was working in that capacity at Tapo Manga Taluka Naushahro Feroze in Nawabshah district in the year 1961‑62. Lal Khan the complainant is resident of village Usman Gahajo in Taluka Naushahro Feroze, in Nawabshah District. After the death of his father he applied to the Mukhtar‑i‑Kar, Nushahro Feroze for mutating his name in the record‑of‑rights in respect of Survey Nos. 556, 67 and 59 in village Rajo Kirio Taluka Naushahro Feroze. The Mukhtar‑i‑Kar marked his application to the appellant for recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses. On receipt of the notice to produce his evidence, the complainant along with his witnesses went to the Taluka Office at Naushahro Feroze. The Mukhtar‑i‑Kar directed him to appear before the appellant. He in the company of his witnesses, Minhoon and Umedali went to the appellant. The appellant recorded the statements of the witnesses and the complainant. It is alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 60 from the complainant for supplying him the certified copies of the record‑of rights. The complainant paid him Rs. 30 in the presence of Manhoon and Umedali. It is further alleged that when the complainant went again for the collection of the certified copies of the record‑of‑rights, the appellant made a further demand of Rs. 800 from the complainant for effecting mutation in his favour. The case of the prosecution further is that Lal Khan complainant further paid Rs. 360 after disposing of his bullocks and crops. The appellant insisted for the balance of Rs. 440 otherwise the complainant was told that the mutation would not be effected in his name. A few days later it is alleged the complainant obtained a certified copy of Intikhab regarding Survey No. 69, pertaining to village Rajo Kirio from the appellant by offering him a bribe of Rs. 50 through one Khaliqdino. It is said that the complainant brought all these facts to the notice of Mukhtar‑i‑Kar Naushahro Feroze and subsequently made an application against the appellant to the Anti Corruption Officer, Hyderabad, on the 14th of February 1962. A case under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was registered against the appellant.

4. In order to establish its case the prosecution examined Lal Khan, Umedali, Ramzan, Muhammad Saleh, Gul Hassan, Jumu Khan and Ghulam Nabi, Head Constable. The gist of the evidence of Lal Khan, Umedali, Jumu Khan and Ramzan for the purpose of this case is that a sum of Rs. 360 was paid to the appellant when he visited their village, Muhammad Saleh and Gut Hassan deposed that the notice Exh. 5 on the connected file is in the handwriting of the appellant.

5. On this evidence the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was a public servant and accepted Rs. 360 from Lal Khan as a part payment for mutating Survey Nos. 556, 67 and 69 on his name and thereby committed an offence under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of .the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

6. It would be seen that Lal Khan was forced by the appellant to give the bribe. Therefore, a slight corroboration may be sufficient to hold that his evidence is sufficiently worthy of belief and may be safely relied upon. In the instant case, the evidence of Lal Khan finds corroboration from the testimony of Umedali, Jumu Khan and Ramzan. They gave a consistent account and there is nothing in the .cross‑examination to discredit their evidence. The defence evidence has been rightly discarded by the learned Special Judge and is of no consequence.

7. After examining the entire record carefully I am of the considered view that there is no substance in this appeal which must fail. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentences of the appellant are upheld. The appellant must surrender to his bail bond to serve out the remainder of the sentence.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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