Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 974 of 1975, decided on 3rd November, 1982.

----S. 161-Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947). S. 5 (2) Bribery-Trap case-Complainant not a person of clean, record and implicit reliance could not be placed on his statement-Pro secution failing to bring home guilt of accused beyond doubt and accused acquitted.

Sh. Nisar Qutab for Appellant.

Rafi Siddiqui for the State.

Date of hearing : 3rd November, 1982.

Muhammad Hanif appellant was convicted on 23rd October, 1975, by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months, for accepting Rupees Fifty as illegal gratification from Barkat Ullah, Veterinary Compounder (P. W. 3), on 11th May, 1972. It was the case of Barkat Ullah complainant that his pay for months of January to April, 1972 was withheld and the appellant, who was posted as clerk in the office of Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry, Camp bellpur demanded Rupees one Hundred as illegal gratification and the bribe money was settled as Rupees Fifty. Barkat Ullah lodged the F. I. R. Exh. P. K., on 11th May, 1972, with Riaz Hussain, Inspector A. C. E., Rawalpindi. A raiding party comprising of Syed Akhtar Ali Shah, Magistrate 1st Class, Campbellpur, Riaz Hussain Inspector, Barkat Ullah and three Constables was constituted on 11th May, 1972. Raid was conducted. Barkat Ullah passed on the tainted currency notes to the appellant. On receiving the signal, the Magistrate and the Inspector reached the office of the appellant. The Magistrate recovered the tainted currency notes from the pocket of the bushirt of the appellant. Statement of the appellant was recorded by the Magistrate, who took a plea that Barkat Ullah had taken a loan of Rupees Fifty from him and the money recovered from him was not a bribe money and it was the loan amount, which had been returned to him by Barkat Ullah. The appellant had named Khuda Bakhsh Junior Clerk (D. W. 1), Muhammad Hussain Senior Clerk (D. W. 2), Muhammad Akbar peon and Maskeen Alam Stock Assistant and the persons, in whose presence he had given Rupees Fifty to the appellant as loan. The appellant was challaned after investigation.

2. The prosecution examined five witnesses in order to prove the case. Neither the tainted currency notes had been passed on by Barkat Ullah to the appellant within the view of the Magistrate and the Inspector nor the said two witnesses heard the conversation, which took place between Barkat Ullah and the appellant when the tainted currency notes were passed on. Soon after the raid, the appellant took a specific plea. Khuda Bakhsh and Muhammad Hussain were cited as prosecution witnesses but later given up. Both these prosecution witnesses were examined in defence and they supported the plea of the appellant. Barkat Ullah admitted in cross-examination that the inquiry was held against him for drawing the pay of certain employees, who were in fact, not on the roll. It would show that Barkat Ullah complainant was not a person of clean record and no implicit reliance could be; placed on his statement. After having gone through the, record and heard the learned counsel for the parties, I hold that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond doubt. The appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail and is discharged of his bail bond.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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