Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 1978, decided on 18th September, 1984.

--S. 161--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)--Bribery, offence of--Admittedly accused a Patwari accepted alleged bribe money in consideration of producing record in a civil Court and no specific allegation that money accepted in connection with his official functions- Prosecution evidence even if accepted at its face value, no offence either under S. 161, P.P.C. or under S. 5(2) of Act, 1947, held, made out--Conviction and sentence set aside in circumstances.

Muhammad Ilyas for Appellant.

Arshad Qureshi for the State.

Date of hearing: 18th September, 1984.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti--Corruption, Lahore-1, whereby he on 25-6-1978 convicted Abdul Aziz appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to nine months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default thereof to further R.I. for six months.

2. The appellant was working as Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded Rs. 300 sometime before 9-1-1976 and accepted Rs. 50 on 9-1-1976 as illegal gratification from Saeed Ahmad complainant in consideration for producing record in the Court of Civil Judge. At trial stage, Saeed Ahmad complainant stated that the amount was received by the appellant for his appearance in the Court.

3. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel inclined to accept the appeal on the ground that the allegation levelled against the appellant and the evidence of the complainant accepted at its face value, no offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,, 1947 is made out, therefore, I need not set out the facts of the case in detail. The provisions of sections 161, P.P.C. and section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 may be reproduced advantageously:-

"Sec. 161. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Whoever being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself -or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central or any Provincial Government or Legislature, or with any public servant, as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both."

Sec: 5. Criminal misconduct.-- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct:-

(a) ...........

(b) If he accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, likely concerned in any proceeding or business transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or"

4. From the examination of the provisions of law, reproduced above, it is very much clear that in order to attract the provisions of section 161, P.P.C. and section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, it was very much necessary to allege and prove that the appellant had taken bribe in connection with his official act. Since the appearance before a Court for evidence or production of document was not in connection with his official act or function therefore, I am of the view that the allegation and the evidence of the complainant accepted at its face value, the charges do not stand proved against the appellant. He is, therefore, acquitted of the charges.

S. G. D. Acquittal ordered.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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