Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1972, decided on 2nd October 1975.

‑‑‑Ss. 161 & 162 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Bribe‑[Trap case]‑Testimony of prosecution witnesses consistent, uniform, and confidence inspiring‑Such witnesses having no motive to falsely implicate accused persons‑ Prosecution version corroborated by presence of accused persons in the house of complainant where tainted money passed on to accused persons and recovered from them by Presiding Magistrate immediately thereafter ‑‑‑ Prosecution, held, proved guilt of accused beyond doubt‑Conviction maintained, in circumstance

‑‑‑ Sentence‑Mitigation‑Accused suffering agony of a prolonged trial for about 6 years and also losing his service‑Sentence reduced to one already undergone, in circumstances.‑‑ [Sentence].

Riaz Anwar for Appellants.

Malik Muhammad Aslam for the State.

Date of hearing: 25th September 1975.

Ghulam Farid, Consolidation Patwari of Halqa Chaudhri. Tehsil Kot Adu, District Muzafargarh and Hasham of the same village were tried because the former demanded and accepted Rs. 100 as illegal gratification which he passed on to the later as his agent. Ch. Ghulam Rasool Azhar, special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore convicted Ghulam Farid Patwari under section 161 P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption 1947 and also convicted Hasham under section 162, P. P. C. and sentenced each of them to suffer R. I. for one year vide his judgment and order passed on 15‑1‑1972, Ghulam Farid Patwari and Hasham convicts have come up in appeal.

2. Briefly, the prosecution case as disclosed in the F. I. R. that con solidation proceedings were carried on in village Choudhry in the year 1969 during which Sher Muhammad complainant P. W. and his father contacted Ghulam Farid Patwari appellant to consolidate their lands at one place to which he agreed and on his demand Ghulam Farid Patwari twice accepted a sum of Rs. 50 each time as illegal gratification from the father of Sher Muhammad complainant P. W. However, from the Khatuni delivered to complaint transpired that their lands had not been consolidated at one place and approached Ghulam Farid Patwari appellant to help them for which Ghulam Farid appellant demanded another sum of Rs. NO as illegal gratification. The complainant promised to pay that amount after a day or so but since he did not want to pay illegal gratification that time he approach ed the Anti‑Corruption Staff who registered formal F. I. R. at Police Station Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Muzaffargarh, on 6‑9.1969 at 6 a.m. After obtaining necessary order deputing a Magistrate a raid party was arranged. It consisted of Ahmad Nawaz (P. W. 1) Naib Tehsildar/Magistrate, Malik Riaz Hussain (P. W. 2), Inspector Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Sher Muhammad complainant (P. W. 3) and Muhammad Siddiq (P. W. 4). The raiding party left Muzaffargarh by bus and reached village Chaudhry where they warred in the house of the complainant according to the arrangement. After some time Ghulam Farid appellant reached the house of the complain ant in the village where the complainant passed on the tainted amount of Rs. 100 to him in the presence of Muhammad Siddiq P. W. upon which Ghulam Farid appellant passed on the tainted money along with a register of consolidation to Hashim appellant and the later left that house but came across the members of the raiding party who took him inside and introduced themselves to Ghulam Farid appellant. The tainted money of Rs. 100 was recovered from the possession of Hashim appellant. The Raid Magistrate recorded the statements of the witnesses and completed raid proceedings and ordered the arrest of the appellants.

3. At the trial prosecution examined four witnesses mentioned above who supported the prosecution case. Sher Muhammad complainant (P. W. 37 and Muhammad Siddiq (P. W. 4) proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and recovery of tainted money which was corroborated by the raiding Magistrate, Ahmad Nawaz (P. W. 1) and the Inspector, Anti --Corruption Establishment, Malik Riaz Hussain (P. W. 2). They all supported the prosecution case.

4. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. When examined immediately after the raid, Ghulam Farid Patwari appellant in his statement (Exh. P. W. 1)/O made before the raiding Magistrate stated that the consoli dation in the village had been completed but on the day of raid at about 5 p. m. after his day's work in the office of Girdawar Consolidation, Ghulam Farid Patwari appellant was returning to his home and when he passed near the house of Sher Muhammad complainant P. W. be stayed there on the complainant's request in order to take water. He further stated that Hashim appellant was present in the house of tile complainant who left the house but was brought back by the members of the Raiding Party when the Raiding Magistrate after introducing himself demanded the tainted money. Ghulam Farid Patwari appellant informed him that it was with Hashim appellant upon which Hashim appellant took out the tainted money from his right pocket and produced it before the Raid Magistrate. When compared the amount of Rs. 100 produced by Hashim appellant was found to be the tainted money. Hashim appellant in his statement before the Raiding Magistrate stated that he had visited the house of the complainant on the asking of Ghulam Farid appellant and the presence of Muhammad Siddiq P. W. Sher Muhammad complainant P. W. gave the amount of Rs. 100 Ghulam Farid appellant gave that money to Hashim appellant and the later left the house but came across the members of the raiding party who brought him back in the house and on the asking of Ghulam Farid appellant Hashim appellant took out that money and gave it to the Raiding Magistrate. A register of consolidation scheme of Mauza Chaudhry, a copy of Khatuni and a report without signatures besides a sum of Rs. 250 was also secured from Hashim appellant.

In his statement under section 242, Cr. P. C. recorded by the trial Court before commencement of trial Ghulam Farid appellant admitted that he was Consolidation Patwari of Chaudhry Halqa at the relevant time but denied the prosecution allegations as untrue. He stated that he proposed the consolidation scheme on 28‑5‑1969. the Assistant Consolida tion Officer confirmed it on 29‑5‑69 and the scheme had already gone out of his hand three months prior to the raid. Similarly in his statement under section 242, Cr. P. C. Hashim appellant stated that he was yet to enter in the house of the complainant when the Raiding party arrived there and that no recovery was made from him nor did he happen to be present with Ghulam Farid appellant.

At the conclusion of the trial when their statements were recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C. the appellants denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty to the charge. Ghulam Farid Patwari appellant denied the recovery of tainted money from Hashim appellant and stated that tie had been falsely implicated due to enmity of the complainant who was not happy with him because he did not agree to his wishes in the consolidation of his land. He also stated that the consolidation scheme to regard to the village Chaudhry was confirmed on 31‑5‑1969 and he was nobody to make any change in that scheme after its confirmation while the raid was conducted on 6‑9‑1969. He examined Noor Mohammad (D. W. 1), Patwari in support of his plea. The witness produced relevant copies Exh. D. W. 1/A. B. C. from the Register of Consolidation Scheme of village Chaudhry and copies of the order passed in appeals and revisions of complainant marked as Exh. D. W. 1/D. E. F. The appellant also tendered in evidence a copy of the order (Exh. D. E.), dated 29‑11-1971, of Assistant Commissioner. Kot Adu whereby the complainant was convicted under section 406/420, P. P. C. regarding fraudulent sale of a plot to mosque. Hashim appellant also denied the recovery and all other allegations. He stated that he bad come to Kot Adu to purchase a cow it the Norse and Cattle Fair at Kot Adu when the complainant met him and produced him before vie police at Police Station, Kot Adu and the police persuaded him to give a statement against Ghulam Farid appellant. He further stated that he was falsely implicated in the case because he declined to appear as a witness against Ghulam Farid appellant.

5. The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecu tion evidence was not worthy of reliance because the complainant admittedly knew that the consolidation scheme had already been confirmed four Months earlier. He further argued that the Raiding Magistrate or the police circle officer did not see nor bear the passing of the tainted money and, therefore, there was no evidence that any money was demanded as bribe and that there was no independent corroboration of the demand and acceptance of the tainted money as illegal gratification in the testimony of the complainant and Muhammad Siddiq P. Ws. Finally he argued that the evidence regard ing place of payment of the tainted money and mode of recovery was inconsistent and not worthy of reliance. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the conviction and sentence of the appellants be maintained for the cogent reasons given by the learned trial Judge. I have been taken through the entire evidence which I have read myself and considered in the light of submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Sher Muhammad complainant P. W. deposed at the trial about the demand and acceptance of Rs. 100 from him by Ghulam Farid Patwari appellant. It was on his statement that a formal F. I. R. was registered at 6 a.m. on 6‑9‑1969, the day on which the raid was conducted in the afternoon. The complainant gave the tainted money to Ghulam Farid appellant who, further passed it onto Hashim appellant. Ghulam Farid Patwari appellant Visited the house of the complainant which he had admitted and where the tainted money was paid to Ghulam Farid appellant and was recovered by the Raiding Magistrate from the shirt pocket of Hashim appellant "Muhammad Siddiq P. W. corroborated the complainant that Ghulam Farid appellant accepted the tainted money and passed it on to Hashim appellant. The Raiding Magistrate and the Inspector Anti‑Corruption Establishment moved the recovery of tainted money from Hashim appellant. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses is consistent, uniform and inspires con fidence. None of them except the complainant can be said to have any motive to falsely implicate the appellants. The complainant would also not implicate the appellants for the mere fact that his land had not been consolidated as desired by him. The presence of appellants is the house of the complainant stands established and proves the version of prosecution. There is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. The prosecution version rings true. The defence plea is not probable. On the evidence on record and in the circumstance of the case the prosecution has proved guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellants were arrested on 6‑9.1969. They have suffered agony of prolonged trial. Ghulam Farid Patwari appellant will lose his service. The appellants were convicted on 15‑1‑1972 but their sentences were suspended on 18‑1‑1972. I consider it a fit case for reduction of sentence to already undergone.

7. As a result of above discussion the convictions of the appellants are maintained but their sentences are reduced to already undergone. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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