Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1977, decided on 12th May, 1984.

--S. 161-Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1974), S. 5(2)-Bribe-- No bribe accepted by accused and statement of solitary witness of demand of bribe by accused not corroborated by other evidence or circumstances-Prosecution, held, failed to prove case against accused beyond reasonable doubt-Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

Ghulam Hussain Qureshi for Appellant.

Arshad Qureshi for the State.

Date of hearing: 12th May, 1984.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore whereby he on 19th Novem ber, 1976, convicted Anis-ur-Rehman appellant under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default thereof further R. I. for a period of nine months.

2. The appellant was working as S. I. Traffic Staff, Police Station, Civil Lines, Lahore. The charge against him is that he demanded Rs. 50 from Muhammad Hanif P.W. Since Muhammad Hanif offered Rs. 10, the appellant refused to accept the same. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses out of whom Muhammad Hanif truck driver appeared to prove the demand and acceptance of the money by the constable. Malik Mazhar Farid M. I. C. P.W. 4 and Khalid Rashid Inspector P.W. 5 were produced to prove the statement of Muhammad Hanif made before the Magistrate just after the occurrence.

4. Appellant when examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence, he produced one witness.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the demand of bribe allegedly made by the appellant through a constable has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has 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 no bribe was accepted by the appel lant; that statement of solitary witness of demand of bribe by the appellant has not been corroborated by other evidence or circumstance and that in statement P.W.-1/A, Muhammad 'Hanif had not stated about the demand of bribe by the appellant.

7. For what has been stated above, I am of the opinion that the prose cution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Giving him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge. He being on bail, stands discharged of the bail bond. The fine if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant.

M. Y. H. 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.