Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2068-B of 1982, decided on 23rd August, 1982.

---- S. 497 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161 and Preven tion of Corruption Act (Il of 1947), S. 5-Bail - (Trap-case)-Petitioner charged for offences under section 161, P. P. C. & S. 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act punishable with 3 years and 7 years' R. I. respectively-Prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr. P. C. not being attracted to petitioner's case, petitioner allowed bail on such ground alone.

Ch. Muhammad Arif for Petitioner.

Malik Abdul Rehman for the State.

Date of bearing : 23rd August, 1982:

Muhammad Aslam Field Assistant Daftuh made a report on 2nd August, 1982 to the Anti corruption Establishment, Kasur, to the effect that the petitioner was demanding from him Rs. 1,000 as bribery for accommodating the informant as to his attendance in the office and per formance of his duties. The petitioner insisted for the payment of the above said amount stating that in case the informant failed to pay the amount, the petitioner would report against him and on that basis he would get him suspended and ultimately removed from service. A raid was arranged. The raiding party was headed by a Naib-Tehsildar. This particular amount, according to the statement of the informant, was passed to the petitioner. Then he (the informant) gave an indication to the other members of the raiding party the petitioner was held up by the Raiding Magistrate. He was searched out and Rs. 1,000, the tainted money was recovered from the pocket of his shirt on the right side. A report is alleged to have been drawn in which it is incorporated that the petitioner did not care to give any explanation as to the possession of the tainted money recovered from his pocket. The petitioner was arrested there and then.

2. The petitioner applied for bail before the Senior Special Judge (Anti-corruption) Lahore at Kasur, who vide his order dated 9th August, 1982 dismissed his application.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Muhammad Aslam informant's record of service happens to be all replete with reprimands and warnings issued to him by his officers as to the performance of certain duties. Recently a report had been made to the petitioner by the Agriculturists that the informant had not effected pestici dal spray and had instead utilized the same. The petitioner called for an explanation of the informant which offended him. On 2nd of August, 1982 the informant absented himself from the office and did not attend the meeting scheduled to be held on the same day. However, he came to the petitioner late in the evening with an application for three days leave on the ground that his brother had met with an accident a day before that day. The petitioner required him to complete his work first and then to go on leave. With this background the informant was looking to injure the petitioner since the informant apprehended something drastic on the reports about which the informant was threatened. He took up the upper hand and before the thins came to that pass he made a false report and got the above said raid arranged just to involve the petitioner so as to remove him from his way. The petitioner has been involved in the case due to ulterior motives and in so far as the facts are concerned, he is innocent.

4. The learned counsel for the State while opposing the grant of bail .has submitted that the cases of bribery do not stand on a par with ordi nary commissions. In fact a decent society must be kept as purged of such persons who by abusing their official position stoop down to the acceptance of money through such ways. The learned counsel has further submitted that there was no motive with the raiding party to condescend to the false involvement of the petitioner: The learned counsel has next contended that the tainted- money had been recovered from the petitioner and it was for him to have come out with some explanation as to his possession. He has concluded his submissions by submitting lastly that the prosecution is in possession of material evidence and is likely to succeed upon it

5. All the arguments raised on both the sides and even further, can be submitted and urged successfully at the trial stage. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to note that in the instant case the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C. is not attracted since the punishment provided under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is seven years' R. 1. whereas the offence under section 161, P. P. C. is punishable only with three years' R. I. The petitioner is accordingly allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 7,000 (Rupees seven thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail 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.