Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 1972, heard on 31st October, 1984.

--S. 341--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161--Abatement of appeal--Accused dying during pendency of appeal--Accused had also been awarded sentence of fine- Appeal of accused, held, would not abate under S. 341, Cr.P.C. and had to be decided on merits.

---S. 5(2)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161--Illegal gratification- Tainted currency notes not recovered from possession of accused--Raiding Magistrate and Inspector, Anti-Corruption not seeing passing on of tainted money to accused--Statement of complainant, that accused after having recovered tainted money from him had passed it to another person, alone remaining in field--No implicit reliance, held, could be placed on such statement of complainant--Accused acquitted in circumstances.

Mst. Bashiran Bibi (widow) for Appellant in person.

Rafi Siddiq for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 31st October, 1984.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi Camp at Lyallpur whereby he on 21-7-1972 convicted Muhammad Siddique appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.300 in default thereof to further R.I. for three months. Although the appellant has died yet since the appellant has also been awarded a sentence of fine, the appeal would not abate under section 341, Cr.P.C. and as such, has to be decided on merits.

2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded Rs.100 but accepted Rs.70 as illegal gratification from Umar Hayat, P.W. 4. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined 4 witnesses. Umar Hayat, P.W. 4 appeared to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Khan Muhammad, P.W. 1 and Masood Ahmad Magistrate, P.W. 2, were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication. In defence he produced 3 witnesses.

5. I have gone through the evidence with the assistance of learned counsel for the State. I find that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the possession of the appellant. The Magistrate and the Inspector, Anti-Corruption had not seen the passing on of the tainted currency notes to the appellant. In this view of the matter, the statement of the complainant to the effect that the appellant after having received the tainted currency notes from him had passed to one Natha alone remains in field upon which I do not feel inclined to place implicit reliance.

6. For what has been stated above, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge.

H. A. K. 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.