Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 605 of 1978, heard on 9th July, 1984.

-- S. 161-Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2) Bribery-Raid not conducted under supervision of Magistrate and conversation between complainant and accused which preceded while passing of tainted money not heard by Police Inspector --Reasonable possibility of defence version being true not ruled out-- Testimony of complainant that tainted currency notes were given to accused as illegal gratification uncorroborated-Prosecution, held, failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.-[Benefit of doubt].

Nemo for Appellant.

Mrs. Angla Marks for the State.

Date of hearing: 9th July, 1984.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, whereby he on 8th July, 1978 convicted Muhammad Rafi appellant under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to two years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default thereof to six months' R. I.

2. The appellant was working as Patwari. The charge against him is that he demanded and accepted Rs. 400 from Muhammad Saeed complainant in order to complete pass book relating to Agriculture Development Bank. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Malik Iqbal Hussain P. W. 1 Inspector Police verified investigation of the case. Shafiq Ahmed Bill Clerk appeared to prove the sanction order of the prosecution of the appellant. Muhammad Rafiq draftsman P. W. 4 stated that the appellant was working as a Patwari in circle Muridke on the day of raid. Anwar-ul-Haq Inspector Crime Branch investigated the case. He supported the prosecution case.

4. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. denied all the incriminating circumstances. While admitting the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him he explained that the same were paid as revenue arrears due from the complainant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecu tion failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as bribe money. Conversely the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that for the motives best known to Anwar-ul. Haq Inspector Police he did not care to arrange raid under the supervision of the Magistrate and that Anwar-ul-Haq Inspector did not hear any talk between the complainant and the appellant which preceded the passing on of the tainted money. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the reasonable possibility of the defence version being true cannot be excluded inasmuch as it would be highly unsafe to accept the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant that the tainted currency notes were given to the appellant as illegal gratification. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Giving him the benefit of doubt he is acquitted of the charge.

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.