Find a Lawyer

[Lahore]

Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 1976, decided on 16th May, 1984.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--

---S. 161--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)--Illegal gratification--Conversation preceding passing on of disputed money heard by raiding Magistrate whose evidence absolutely dependable and standing test of cross-examination--Evidence fitting in with other evidence and inspiring confidence--Defence evidence not strong enough to rebut his testimony--Conviction upheld.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--

---S. 161--Preventior of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)--Illegal gratification--Accused losing his service and suffering agony of protracted trial--Sentence of fine reduced--Imprisonment till rising of Court however maintained.--[Sentence].

Ghulam Hussain Qureshi for Appellant.

Abdul Waheed Khan for the State.

Date of hearing: 9th May, 1984.

ThisCriminal Appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, whereby he on 5-7-1976 convicted Muhammad Hanif appellant under Section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof further R.I. for six months.

2. The appellant was working as, a clerk in the office of the District Manager, Lahore Omni Bus Service. The charge against him is that he demanded and then accepted Rs.30 as illegal gratification. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses out of whom Muhammad Daud P.W.4 appeared to prove the acceptance of bribe money by the appellant. Umar Khan M.I.C. P.W.1 and Bashir Ahmad Khan Inspector Anti-Corruption were produced to prove the recovery of tainted money from the appellant. These witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant while admitting recovery of amount from him stated that the same was given to him by the complainant as loan. In his defence he produced Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Razzaq as D.W. 1 and D.W.2.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the plea that it was a loan money was raised at the earliest opportunity, therefore, due consideration should have been given to the plea raised by the appellant and that the prosecution has failed to prove motive for acceptance of bribe money. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment' of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced with care. I find that since conversation preceding the passing on of the disputed money was heard by the Magistrate and he being absolutely dependable witness, there is no possibility of the version given by the appellant being true. Umar Khan Magistrate has stood the test of cross-examination. His evidence fits in with the other evidence and inspires confidence of truth. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut the testimony of Umar Khan Magistrate. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.

7. Coming to the question of sentence, I feel persuaded to reduce it because the appellant has lost his service and has also suffered agony of protracted trial. The fine of Rs.1,000 awarded to the appellant is, therefore, reduced to 85.500 in default thereof, the appellant will undergo R.I. for six months. The sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court is however maintained. The fine if paid, the balance i.e. Rs.500 be refunded to the appellant and if the fine is not paid, the appellant shall pay the same in the trial Court within three weeks.

M. Y. H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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