Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 1983, decided on 13th November, 1984.
--S. 161--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) S.5(2)--Bribery- [Trap-case]--Benefit of doubt--Neither raiding-Magistrate nor Police Inspector witnessing money changing hands or over-hearing talk between complainant and accused immediately before raid--No independent corroboration of statement of complainant regarding acceptance of money by accused as bribe available on record--Recovery of tainted money from pocket of accused not denied but accused stating before raiding Magistrate that same was possibly put in his pocket by complainant without his knowledge--Possibility that plea taken by accused immediately after occurrence might be true, not excluded--Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Tufail Basra for Appellant.
M. Sharif for the State.
Date of hearing: 13th November, 1984.
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 1-10-1983 convicted Muhammad Ali appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 end sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 1000 in default thereof to R.I. for six months.
2. The appellant was Patwari. The charge against him was that he accepted Its. 500 from Muhammad Iqbal P.W.2 for the demarcation of the land of his father. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case the prosecution examined four witnesses. Muhammad Iqbal complainant P.W.2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from him. Muhammad Bashir Magistrate P.W.4 and Zulfiqar Inspector A.C.E. P.W.1 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from him. The rest of the evidence is not very much important.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied incriminating circumstances. While admitting the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him, he explained that the same were in fact put in his pocket without his knowledge. In defence he produced two witnesses.
5. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in the circumstances of the case, the possibility that the money was put in the pocket of the appellant without his knowledge cannot be excluded. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the Magistrate and the Inspector had not seen the money changing hands. They did not hear any talk between the complainant and the appellant before the raid, that the appellant when examined shortly after the raid when there was no occasion for consultation, gave the same explanation as he has given in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C . Since there is no independent corroboration of the statement of the complainant that the appellant had accepted the money from him, therefore in the peculiar circumstances that the appellant had raised his plea immediately, after the occurrence, I am of the view that reasonable possibility that the plea taken by him might be true is very much there. For all these reasons, it would be, in accordance with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases; that the appellant is given benefit of doubt.
For what has been stated above, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge.
S. G. D. Acquittal Ordered.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer