Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 211 of I996, decided on 23rd November 1976.

-- S.161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947); S. 5(2)-Witness-Evidence-Bribe-giver-An interested witness Conviction based on testimony of bribe-giver alone in absence, any uninterested corroborative evidence- Held: Not safe--Conviction and sentence set aside.-[Witness].

Noor Muhammad v. The State P L D 1963 S C 39 rel.

Muhammad Hayat Junejo for Appellant.

Sabir Rehmani for the State

Dates of hearing: 11th, 15th, 17 th, 22 nd, and 23 rd November 1976.

Appellant Abdul Shakoor, was trying alongwith acquitted accused Amir Haider Naqvi, by the special Judge and Enquiry Officer, Karachi, under section 161, P. P. C. read with Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947. He was convicted and sentenced on 30 th August 1976, to suffer rigorous imprisonment, for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence.

2. The prosecution version is that appellant Abdul Shakoor was Sub Inspector in the Excise and Taxation Department while the acquitted accuse Amir Haider Naqvi was Inspector in B' Division of Excise and Taxation Department, Karachi, in November 1971. The appellant was directed by hi Department to assess a building namely Star Chambers which was owned b Pakistan Herald Publication Limited. The appellant issued a notice on 611: November 1971, to Pakistan Herald Limited informing them that the Stag Chambers will be visited by him .on 8th November 1971. On the appointed date the appellant and the acquitted accused went there and met complainant Ghulam Ali who was working in Pakistan Herald Limited as Assistant Secretary. It is said that instead of taking measurements of the building the purpose of tax the appellant and the acquitted accused hotel where the appellant made some calculation on a piece of paper regarding the assessment and demanded Rs. 10,227 from complainant as an illegal gratification on the plea that if the said amount was paid the mount of assessment would not be enhanced as required under the rules. The appellant is said to have agreed to receive Rs. 5,000 as first instalment. The complainant reported the matter to his Director Muhammad Iqbal who asked him to lodge a report with the police. Accordingly the report was lodge with he Anti-Corruption Establishment on 12th November 1971, at 9 a.m. The Anti-Corruption Police laid a trap; Rs. 5,000, from the complainant and giving the same to him as tainted money in the presence of and mashir Kamal Pasha. It was agreed that after the amount of Rs. 5000 was paid to the appellant, the mashir Kamal Pasha will come out of the room and call the police party. The appellant had a talk with the complainant on telephone and the complainant asked him to come to his office to get the money at about 12 noon. In the meantime, the complainant alongwith the police party reached his office. The complainant and mashir Kamal Pasha sat in, the office of the complainant while the Magistrate and police officers remained outside. Both the appellant and acquitted accused are said to have reached there and the complainant paid the tainted money to the appellant in the presence of mashir Kamal Pasha and then both of them went out. It is also alleged that the appellant passed on the money to the acquitted accused outside the office of the complainant. Both the appellant and acquitted accused were apprehended by the Magistrate and a case was registered against them under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947.

3. The appellant has denied having committed the offence. He has stated that he neither demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant nor any money had been recovered from him.

4. The prosecution has examined the complainant P. W. Ghulam Ali who allegedly gave the bribe to the appellant. The other witnesses such as the Magistrate and the mashir were also examined but the prosecution's case does not receive any support from their statements. P. W. Ghulam Ali has asserted that the appellant and the acquitted accused demanded the illegal gratification from him and that he gave the money to the appellant who in turn passed it on to the acquitted accused. However, tile conviction is based on his solitary statement. I-lie learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the conviction based on the solitary testimony of the bribe-giver is untenable. He has placed reliance on Noor Muhammad v. The State (P L D 1963 S C 39). In this case it was held that the evidence of the bribe-giver mint be scanned with" much caution. In the instant case there is no corroborative evidence to lend support to the statement of the bribe-giver. In the absence of any un interested corroborative evidence it would not be safe to convict the appellant on the testimony of the bribe-giver alone as the bribe-giver is an interested witness.

5. For the foregoing reasons I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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