Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 440 of i 982, decided on 4th June, 1984.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22‑12‑1982, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 962 of 1978).

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑Illegal gratifica tion‑Case squarely brought home to accused‑petitioner and his acquittal rightly set aside by High Court‑Leave to appeal refused.

Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

M. M. Said Baig, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Date of hearing : 4th June, 1984.

.‑Raja Khalid, petitioner, a police constable in the F. I. A. seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 22‑12‑1982, dismissing his appeal in a case under section 161, P. P. C. read with S. 5(2) of‑the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. The facts giving rise to the petition are, briefly, that the petitioner who is a constable in the F. I. A. was posted at the Lahore Airport with the Deputy Director Immigration. He demanded Rs. 2,000 as bribe from Younis (P. W. 4) for allowing Amjad Pervaiz (a relative of Muhammad Younis (P. W. who had come from Dubai), to permit him to leave the airport. It may he explained that Amjad pervaiz had acquired foreign nationality, therefore, permission of the Home Department was needed for him to enter Pakistan. Muhammad Younis P. W. 4 took Rs. 2,000 from a taxi driver, through the good Offices of Kishwar Khan (P. W. 1) and gave it to the accused‑petitioner who accepted the same. Subsequently the matter was brought to the notice of Mr. Muhammad Sadiq (P. W. 6) Deputy Director F. I. A. who instituted an inquiry. A case was registered against the petitioner on 29‑1‑1977 under section 161. P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

3. After the investigation, the accused was charged under the above mentioned provisions of law and was sent up for trial before the Special Judge, Lahore.

4. At the trial prosecution case was supported by Kishwar Khan, P. W. 1, Muhammad Younis (P. W. 4) and Muhammad Sadiq (P. W. 6), Assistant Director. F. I. A.

5. The learned trial Judge acquitted him by his order, dated 22‑3‑1978. The State then filed an appeal against his acquittal which was accepted by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 22‑12‑1982.

Hence the present petition.

6. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since Muhammad Younis and Kishwar Khan, P. W. 4, were themselves the persons who had given the bribe to the petitioner they were, obviously, accomplices in the crime alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and consequently their testimony needed to be corroborated by independent evidence as required by section 133 of the Evidence Act.

7. We find no force in this contention. The prosecution case is that the petitioner asked Muhammad Younis P. W. 4 to give the bribe. The latter requested Kishwar Khan (P. W. 1) who works as a loader at the airport to help him in obtaining the money (Rs. 2,000) which he (Kishwar Khan P. W.1) got from a taxi driver, on the plea that he had to "pay it to someone". There is no evidence that he knew that this money was to be paid as bribe to the petitioner. The plea taken by the petitioner at the trial was that he was not even present at the airport on that day, as he was on that day, as he was on leave, is falsified by his own officer Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, Assistant Director F I A (P. W: 6), who stated that the petitioner was on duty at the airport on that day. We feel that the case has been squarely brought home to the petitioner and his acquittal was rightly set aside by the High Court. Leave is consequently refused.

S. Q. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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